Talk:Gay pride/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Slogan 2 Curent Pride info 3 Opposition (wording) 4 George W. Bush Poll 5 See also section 6 Names in the article 7 Opposition Section 8 Images removed....why? 9 Citations please 10 Jumpaclass article 11 Concerns 11.1 First changes 11.2 Added ancient history section for context 11.3 Straight Pride article has been deleted. Should I use some of that here? 11.4 Began referencing the article so far 11.5 Enlarging history section 12 To answer your questions, Amadscientist: 13 Gay pride is a movement as gay is a lifestyle

Slogan

Why did this get moved away from the Slogan title? "Gay pride" and the SLOGAN "Gay Pride" are two different things. -- Zoe

Is it ever used merely as a slogan? I think separating them is absurd. It is one of those terms that is so intimately linked that it is pointless to categorise it separately as a slogan. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:58 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

The initial sentence of this article says Gay pride is a slogan of the gay rights movement. The article should discuss the Gay pride culture, not the slogan. -- Zoe

Curent Pride info

From a friendly user: The history section is great, but I looked up this article hoping to find something about current pride days. Hoping someone reading this knows enough to add a section on current pride days, with info like "Pride day is usually celebrated on...." and "The largest Pride Day celebrations are in....." Thanks, Dan

Done. Benjiboi 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposition (wording)

re: "Within the gay community, some reject the notion of gay pride, perceiving therein an undue emphasis on sexual preference and a lack of discretion..."

This (the empahsized wording) was why I reverted everything, instead of just removing the bit about the gay lions - which was odd in and of itself.

The word "preference" used in this mannor only furthers the impression that sexuality is a choice, a lifestyle into which people enter of their own free will. This is most certainly not the case, and as such, the term "sexual preference" is typically only used by individuals rallying against homosexuality, for whatever reason. It's been largely agreed that "sexual orientaion" is the term that is the most correct - and in the case of Wikipedia, the most NPOV.

Personally, I would have kept "men and women" in the passage as well, otherwise you are left with the problem of "some what? Communities? People? Gays?" etc. Arcuras 05:00, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess that makes sense. I changed it from 'sex' since that either means intercourse or gender, neither of which is necessarily relevant to the gender of one's partner. --SPUI (talk) 06:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jovancevic

Removed "Jovancevic" info. Who is this "Jovancevic" person? If someone puts it back in, please cite the source. --Bindingtheory 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush Poll

Sorry to delve a bit off topic, but I would like to bring your attention to an active poll in the George W. Bush talk page.

• Talk:George W. Bush#Sentence Poll - Poll/survey on whether or not the fact that Bush is the "first Republican to appoint an openly gay man" to his administration is appropriate for his article. Pro says it is a relevant fact that shows Bush is making strides toward inclusiveness, con says given the hundreds, even thousands of appointments a president makes, one is insignificant. Lengthy discussion is above the poll.

If you have an opinion on this matter, please feel free voice it by voting. Thanks! Sdauson 15:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

See also section

I am concerned about the wikilink to "Straight pride" being on this page in the See also section. I feel it should be removed until the Straight pride article is cleaned up to be less hateful and offensive. For example, there's a sentence in it that says "Most supporters of Straight pride feel that homosexuals are inferior in some way to heterosexuals." Unsourced and untrue! Gay pride certainly does not make any such absurd assertions. Gilliamjf 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Straight pride article has unsourced and untrue content, the best solution is to remove it :-) . The wikilink from here is valid, though, as gay pride and straight pride are related topics. I myself am unfamiliar with a straight pride movement, but I would not be too surprised if one of its positions was that heterosexuality is superior. Offensiveness of a movement's positions should not prevent an encyclopedic article from referencing them. The Rod 22:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you misquoted the sentence regarding inferiority. It actually says that they believe that homosexuality is inferior in some manner to heterosexuality. Not homosexuals to heterosexuals. I don't see anything hateful in the Straight pride article. It is factual and it contains a list of citations backing up its statements. You're comparing the motivations behind "Straight Pride" to those behind "Gay Pride," and they're simply not analagous. You're right that Gay Pride makes no such assertions of superiority/inferiority. (quite the opposite, in fact. Gay Pride asserts equality) But Straight Pride does. What about White Pride? Don't you think that people who identify with the White Pride movement believe that non-white people are inferior? Straight Pride is anti-gay, as supported by a list of citations from reputable sources spanning 15 years. You can't not-like something or be anti-something without believing it to be inferior in some respect. -Bindingtheory 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Names in the article

This is less about the article than vandalism. I just removed "Gay Pride Organization founded by ..." from the article. Moving back through the history, I found it had been there with various names for a while. I don't think there ever was some centralized original "Gay Pride Organization". It seems obvious it was a vandal but it's something to watch out for: new names being added without any sourcing or verification. An article like this is obviously ripe for such high school type vandalism. Just a note. --Pig^man 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the more people who add this to their watchlist the better. ♣ DannyBurgz ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition Section

I just added the "expand" tag to the "Opposition" section because I feel the article would be stronger with more support there. Particularly when addressing the question of fundamentalist protest against Gay Pride, it seems a bit weak to end the section with a generalized, unsourced statement about a slang term for the protesters. Is that necessary information? What does it tell us about Gay Pride? It feels like something has been lost here, but since I figured this is an article that someone or a group of someones probably tends on a regular basis, I did not want to mess with the section much without asking if perhaps another editor had removed part of the section to create that abrupt ending. However it came to be in this shape, the section as it stands needs more filling out and a better conclusion. --thimble 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly this entire section seems out of place. There is nothing that says an opposing view is necessary for an encyclopedic article. There are NO references to this section AT ALL and seems to be original research. There was only one reference and it was dead. I will expect to see some references soon or I will be deleting the section.--Amadscientist 08:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section per Wiki policy. Should it be returned I expect some references for the claims being made and a good arguement to it's inclusion on this page.--Amadscientist 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Images removed....why?

There has been some recent vandalsim on this page. While many of the reverts were justified, the removal of all images was not explained so I reverted that as well.--Amadscientist 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Benjiboi 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations please

I gotta say....and please don't throw anything at me. This article needs a lot of references. As old as this movement is, and as well documented as it is, it is time to put up the needed references to make this a true Wikipedia article. Seriously, only 3 references? The straight pride article was recently re-written and has 18 references! And that is hardly even a slight following!--Amadscientist 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Some added, article tagged for more. Benjiboi 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jumpaclass article

I have choosen this article to replace my original choice of a jumpaclass article. Originally it was "Straight pride", but that was met with opposition on the page by another editor which started a situation that lead me to nominate the article for deletion. It has been re-written, very well re-written but may still be deleted as the vote is close but you never know. The first time it was nominated for deletion it was a landslide to keep. But anyway, I figured I would just stick to friendly ground and try to remember my days rummaging through the LA Gay archives and all the history there.--Amadscientist 10:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Should the stonewall riot be reffered to as a rebellion? I sympathize with the sentiment but is that appropriate strictly speaking for an encyclopedic website? --ConeyIslandBoy 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have always referred to this as the Stonewall Rebellion. I seem to remember that in the early days after Stonewall, that's what we called it. On the other hand, Stonewall Riot seems to be more common now (even in the glbt community). Some actual research is probably needed to determine how this developed and why.

Wayne King 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC) (founder, Gay Liberation Front of Detroit, 1969)

First changes

The first thing I have done is to remove the word campaign and replace it with movement. Clearly Gay Pride is a movement. I also added "international" to the word movement as it has become world wide.--Amadscientist 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I returned the word "campaign" along with movement. References bare this out.--Amadscientist 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Added ancient history section for context

To understand a persons pride of sexuality I believe that the societies history of perception must be put into context with the subject or we have no clear understanding of what anyone is being proud of.

I will also be adding a section of famous figures in contemporary history, such as Oscar Wilde. This is important to see why the uprising at stonewall was of historic significance.--Amadscientist 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Straight Pride article has been deleted. Should I use some of that here?

The Straight Pride article was voted off the site by AFD this week. However some of the information (only some) could be used to source the opposition section that I had removed previously. I was thinking of adding that section back with referenced material from the other article.--Amadscientist 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, we'll see the Strait Pride again even if it's a section only added into the Homophobia article or similiar. Benjiboi 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Began referencing the article so far

I have begun to reference the article as it is at this moment before it gets too large and becomes too time consuming.--Amadscientist 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Enlarging history section

There is an important history here and needs to included. The early turn of the century movement in Germany. Paragraph 175 as well as the holocaust are all apart of gay pride history and need to be added.--Amadscientist 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have determined the section to be Original Research and will endeavor to re-write it in a manner that is factual and more directly sourced to the Gay Pride movement.--Amadscientist 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions, Amadscientist:

The main problems I had with the section as written were as follows:

There is a main article, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, for this topic, and so the discussion in this article should be as brief of a discussion as possible with a 'main article' notice (which I added at the beginning of the section.

When the article says 'The human form was considered a thing of beauty and there was no great shame in same sex coupling', this is a dire oversimplification of the actual facts. This statement would lead the reader to believe that homosexual sex was considered OK between any two people, regardless of sex or social class. This is actually not true (the homosexuality in ancient greece article does a good job of explaining the nuances here, so I'll refer you to that if you're looking for specifics). This is one of the 'dubious claims' I was talking about. In short, the social system of sexuality depended greatly on social class, and lesbians were never accepted in ancient Greece (in fact they recoiled at the idea). Goldhill's book Love, Sex, and Tragedy gives a pretty good, if a bit oversimplified, summary of this if you want to check it out. The websites cited in the original edit (I'm familiar with them) overlook these nuances, and use parts of the history for advocacy reasons (and while I agree with what they are seeking, personally, the methodology of the history and the reading of sources like Dover is...well...wrong...and annoying).

The same goes for the Rome section, actually, and I'm not quite sure where that site got this information from. And yes, the expansion tag was meant to show that the summary of the Homosexuality in ancient Rome article that might be on this page needs to be longer, and I didn't have time to do it earlier.

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if this should be in here at all, because this article is supposed to be about gay pride and the gay pride movement, both of which are highly anachronistic when talking about antiquity. This concept did not exist for the Greeks or the Romans. For now, I will remove it, but it's in the page history in case anybody wants to dispute the edit in discussion.

I hope this helps. CaveatLector^Talk 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'd forgotten that it's placement in this article was to give context to it's use by the gay pride movement, so I've left it in. CaveatLector^Talk 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a moment to discuss you edits. That did help me a great deal. The reason for adding the ancient history section is for two reason, its use in advocating the movement and as context to societal views on homosexuality. I believe the article is being written not to just gay people but people in general. (it isn't finished by a long shot) For example by knowing about the genocide of homosexuals during WWII we understand the use of the pink triangle. I hadn't gotten to that point in the article but the same is true of the Lambda symbol which is taken from ancient history. I haven't tied all this together but have the intention to do so. Your criticism, however is important to keep the article both neutral and factual. Thanks.--Amadscientist 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that this article might not be the place for all of that. See Homosexuality, Pink triangle, and Homophobia (careful on that last one, it's a doozy, and it's editors, including me, are as happy as we're probably going to get with it. Let's use this article to describe the gay pride movement and not the history of homosexuality or homophobia, which is handled in those other articles. CaveatLector^Talk 04:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And oh, um...try and make your edits all at once. This makes it easier for those using the history function to look at changes that have been made. Thanks! CaveatLector^Talk 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just can't do all edits at once, sorry. I feel strongly about the histories inclusion in the gay pride article. Without it there is little context as to why a movemnet would have been neccesary or what may have built up through a long time period to explain it. There is something wrong with the reference you placed #8. I believe I have a source for that. I will locate it and replace.--Amadscientist 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you coming from on the modern history aspects, but I'm not quite sure where the ancient history comes into the equation. There is no idea of 'gay pride' in classical athens or in imperial rome. In fact, there is no idea of homosexuality. (as a sexual orientaiton/identity). The word Homosexual was invented in the 19th century. I'll handle the reference, btw, it's probably a typo. CaveatLector^Talk 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the idea of sexuality being a modern or contemporary idea, exactly why the modern gay movements have always looked to history as justification to the movement itself. While touring the gay archives in Los Angeles I found huge references to this and I am attempting to bring it all together. Uhm any chance you could cut me a little slack on this and let me finish before taking directly to it. Unless you would like to work together on this article with me. You seem particularly interested and I have no objection if you wish. But instead of re-editing my work then questioning my concept, perhaps we can come to an agreement about direction. Gay pride has, does and will continue to look to history for direction and inspiration for it's cause and the movement. I am attempting to bring this into the article to better understand what it's core meanings are.

Your reference #8 still does not seem correct. It does not bare out the claim but directs to a wikipage about Oxford Classic Dictionary--Amadscientist 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I could just sandbox it and then drop it all in at once. I have been hesitant to do so since my last suggestion to do so was criticized greatly. Unless you wanted to help with it's authoring.--Amadscientist 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have sandboxed it. Sorry if my edits are annoying. I am learning. I will look into your suggestions above and will be keeping what you have added so far. Your contributions are legitimate and welcomed.--Amadscientist 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think sandboxing is a great idea, or you can even put it at User:Amadscientist/Gay Pride. This will create it in your userspace. Also, i'd suggest, when you're done, post a link here and let others look over it. On the reference note, it is supposed to redirect to the article for the OCD. The Oxford Classical Dictionary IS the source. Sources need not be online (and in fact, its more advisable NOT to use online sources and to instead rely on authoritative ones, which cal usually be found at a university library. Online sources are very hard to verify and are often not reliable.) CaveatLector^Talk 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that last part about not citing a web source and their not being rliable as wikipedia is a web source. If they didn't want a web source they would disable the tags or make a statement of such. I prefer web sources as they can be checked immediatley. However I have used non-web sources and proper formating for them is to include the page number were the information can be found.--Amadscientist 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check out WP:RS for guidelines the community has agreed upon for sources. Web sources can be used, but not when other, more authoritative sources are available (in this case, there are plenty of books and articles on the subject). Please also try to consider that being able to check something immediately [isn't always the best thing for research. Haste makes waste, after all. On the citation of print sources, yes, the page number is usually included, but the OCD is a dictionary, which means that all information is alphabetized in various editions, and therefore, no page number is really necessary. CaveatLector^Talk 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry caveat, but I simply do not find your above statement anywhere within Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources. Additionally I do find reference to using web sources as standard as much as RT sources. I also found that when citing a book of any kind the page number must be referenced unless the entire book refers to the information it cites. Since a dictionary cannot in it's entirety represent the information being cited it is appropriate to contain the exact page number as a source here on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While references to web sources are possible, doesn't it stand to reason that authoritative sources such as Dover or the OCD should take precedence? Since they're written by people who have degrees and significant training in this field, that is? (See the section 'What is a reliable source?' in the link I gave you). The websites you have given are not authoritative, certainly not in comparison to those by classicists in this field. There is an online version of the OCD, but you need to be member of a qualifying university to access it. I might be able to drop by my library and grab the pag enumber, but it's still rather silly to quote a dictionary this way. In addition, I've looked up the entry in the online version and it gives a list of sources that are crucial to the subject. I don't know if it would be a good idea to just copy and paste here, though. Can I suggest, if you really are interested in this, you go to the library and check out the OCD to start research towards improvement? Also, I actually agree that this does not have a place in the Gay pride article because of WP:OR, but I'd still recommend reading up on it if it interests you. CaveatLector^Talk 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly you gave a pretty good argument to the "authoritative sources" argument. I my self am but a history buff and very uneducated. I feel there are still many articles online that site these sources and if properly used can make very good references. However I may also be in need of getting off my butt and just go to the library. Even my small local library has several computers that I could use to update on wiki as I research in real time with out having to bring all those books home. I am also lucky enough to live near a large Metropolitan center and can take a light rail train almost directly to the Sacramento county Main Library Branch. Although there is a link to history and the Gay pride movement I am going to hold off for now until I can make it into San Francisco and visit the Gay Archives there. AT least I assume they have one. I know the LA archive has been moved and I seldom make it that far south anymore. Thanks for you help. For now I leave the article with these improvements. Perhaps it is enough to get it to a B rating.--69.62.180.166 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gay pride is a movement as gay is a lifestyle

Lets get this right. When speaking of gay men and women it IS a lifestyle, an alternative life style. I won't to know what the basis was of reverting that part in the opposition section. Lets talk about that.--Amadscientist 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - the word "lifestyle" has many problematic insinuations. It implies that being gay is a choice...just as having a "healthy lifestyle" involves making wise decisions about exercise and diet, or a luxurious lifestyle involves making the decision to spend money freely. Furthermore, the word "lifestyle" furthers the notion that a person's choice of partner has a unmistakable and immediately recognizable impact on every other aspect of their life (i.e., their lifestyle). Just because a person chooses a partner of the same sex doesn't mean that they dress well, go to the gym, have lots of disposable income, don't have children, and like Cher. The word "lifestyle" is a kind of shorthand that is full of inaccurate stereotypes and generalizations. That's why this terminology is so preferred by opponents of GLBT equality. Popkultur 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Well put. Thank you for discussing it with me. I believe it should be edited.--Amadscientist 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)