Talk:Straight pride/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notability

Regarding notability, I was able to identify the following references (sorry about the rotten formatting job):
Members of the Youth for Western Civilization chapter at Washington State have created a stir on campus by supporting traditional marriage and what the president of the group calls "Straight Pride"
"Straight Pride" movement a joke (LGBT blog, but clipping from WSU "Daily Evergreen"
"Michigan Messenger also reported this year on the appearance of a small straight pride movement rearing its head in Michigan." (LGBT online magazine PrideSource)
Sao Pauolo (Brazil) Straight Pride day
Fox News - Chicago High School Uses 'Straight Pride' Shirts for Rights Education
NYT article: " ... An antihomosexual rall by a student group at the University of Massachusetts to show what demonstrators called straight pride has touched off heated exchanges ..."

References

My gut feeling is that "Straight Pride" (like other pride movements) is unorganized and that membership is self-identified. I don't know how one might go about identifying an agenda for a group so composed. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone

From the lede: " ... Similar to the concept of white pride, straight pride is meant by proponents to insinuate the existence of double standards which allow for the celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride, and that too many special rights and privileges have been accorded to LGBT people ..." Linking "straight pride" and "white pride" is overly suggestive. I think that a better sentence - and less leading - might be, "'Straight Pride' is an explicit response to the rise of the "Gay Pride" movement." I'm not sure where else this might go, as the "movement" seems to be unorganized, unaffiliated, leaderless, and largely reactive in nature. The Sao Paulo straight pride parade (linked here) seems to be the only one even proposed. Perhaps this could be reasonably merged with another article? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's commonly an extremist or homophobic response to Gay Pride and i've never heard of a real Straight Pride march as it's usually just a homophobic response followed by "It'll be compulsory to be gay soon".

What about a merge with Gay Pride since it's a fringe idea based off that?

Thanks Jenova20 11:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'll propose a merge. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Harper v. Poway Unified School District

The short section on Harper v. Poway Unified School District doesn't make clear what the case had to do with "Straight pride"; it mentions that the school had previously had a "Straight pride" day, but the school had also previously had lots of things (fire drills, lunches, whatever); unless there's a visible connection between the case and the slogan "straight pride", it should be deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I put it in because it was one case of "Straight pride" which ended up going to court, but then again the court case was tangential to the Straight pride event, so I wouldn't object to it's removal. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Double standard

I've removed the phrase "double standard" - which is incorrect and doesn't match the sources I have. Or rather, it doesn't match the higher quality sources - there are a few right wing sources which do talk about a double standard. The relevent quotes from the texts I have found are

Not surprisingly, individual in the pride stage are most criticized by heterosexual persons but also many LGBT individuals, who are uncomfortable forcing the majority to share the discomfort. Heterosexual individuals may express bewilderment at the term "gay pride", arguing that they do not talk about "straight pride," whereas some LGBT people urge their more visible counterparts to try to blend in and "act normal".

— Eliason, Michael; Schope, Robert (2007), Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation

One of the most common skinhead tactics is to attempt to establish a “White student union.” This method was pioneered in the 1980s by the Klan in the east and WAR in the west as simply an issue of equality. There is a Black prom queen; there should be a White prom queen. There is an Asian student union; there should be a European student union. There are gay pride stickers; there should be straight pride stickers. There is a Hispanic heritage week; there should be a European heritage week, and so on. The concept of the White student union appeals to the adolescent’s need for fairness and balance. Without an understanding of cultural history, in which power has been slanted in the direction of straight, White males, the concept seems just. This is enhanced by the switch to the multicultural curriculum, which further removes the voice of the weakening hegemony

— Blazak, R. (1 February 2001), White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads

Which both talk around reason behind the straight pride discussions, the only sources which specifically discuss a double standard are "Christian newspapers", or other politically motivated sources. As such, I've removed the double standard text. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly fair reasoning.

From what i have so far there's been 2 alleged double standards in this article:

• Double standard that LGBT enjoy better rights in law - this one tends to be used for everything lately when the only real privilege is hate crime laws that also protect the disabled and other minorities. Pretty much what the Human Rights act does ayway.
• Double standard that there can't be a Straight Pride when there's a gay pride. - We've gone into this a few times so i won't elaborate.

Thanks for your involvement WormTT. Jenova20 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

off-topic additions

An editor has repeatedly added material not based around the "straight pride" slogan that is the topic of this article, having done so yet again with material about Romania. I suggest that someone remove this section, and that the editor in question cease making such spurious additions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Said editor is also accusing me of 3 reverts when i have made only 2. He is being disruptive.

Thanks Jenova20 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question erroneously put Romania when in fact Budapest is in Hungary. What's more, the online article does not identify the organizing group nor the religious groups that supported the protest (whose size also goes unreported). Btw, things are looking sock-puppety. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, but the opposing side is still using no policies and is simply voting, which has no real meaning. Good job you started being bold ad moving stuff as this has become a farce. Jenova20 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Factual error

The article stated that Leviticus 20:13 states that "those who perform homosexual acts should be put to death." Such a statement implies that Leviticus 20:13 imposes the death penalty for any homosexual acts, which is incorrect: the verse in question imposes the death penalty only for homosexual acts between men. I have corrected the statement by replacing "those" with "men." I'm pretty shocked that no one else corrected that error, since it should have been obvious to anyone with basic Bible literacy. 203.118.187.29 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited source states otherwise. AV3000 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited source is wrong. TFD (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AV3000: Pick up a Bible, and read it. Leviticus 20:13 states that men who have sex with other men should be put to death. It's a gender-specific passage; it doesn't mention sex between women or talk about homosexual acts in the abstract. Or, just look up the link to Leviticus 20:13 in the article. Why would you restore a statement to the article that's just factually wrong? 203.118.187.29 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My only interest in that particular work of fiction is as a source of historical artistic inspiration; in any case, you (ought to) know the WP:V drill. AV3000 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When a secondary source incorrectly reports what a primary source says, we can use the primary source to correct it. Incidentally, under some definitions homosexuality only applies to men anyway. TFD (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps what was on the t-shirt was the Contemporary English Version: [7], or a translation that combines "abomination" and "those who do". --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So-called "overhaul" of article

On March 14 CJ Withers !voted to Merge and he stated they would "volunteer to complete the merges." Well today they reorganized the article, trimmed it, added their own POV, and here [8] they admit to editing the article in an attempt to prepare it for a merge. They wrote, "I just rehauled the stub so that it can be merged in its entirety."

This is outrageous. The discussion is decidedly against the merge. His edit has made the article incomprehensible and the sectioning is atypical of the way we layout articles. CJ Withers actions are counterproductive and unhelpful. To rewrite the article as if it is part of another article means stripping away important background information and context. This article is not going to be merged. Now it is our job to improve and expand Straight Pride!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the editors opposing the merge has given any policy justification against it, not have they produced even the slightest hint of reliable sources that the concept even exists. Consensus is not a head count. Your changes were highly POV and non-constructive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Adding quotes from event sponsors is fully within policy. Do not move reliably sourced content. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But all that does is show their reasoning for the event, not what the event is - a movement, a peaceful protest, or a gay witch-hunt.

I did already warn that your side was doing nothing but voting and all you've done since is get more votes, no policies, nothing.

You Cannot create a movement from a few incidents that some references considered homophobic and this entire idea you are creating is as has already been said: WP:Synthesis WP:OR WP:POV to name a few. You can't tie incidents together to create a movement. Thanks Jenova20 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alternate; as this is a related but separate subject perhaps both "Gay pride" & "Straight pride" and all such "X pride" articles should be covered under a Pride article, with appropriate sub-articles be created when the main article becomes too large. Such an article of course should adhere to WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no. When the majority of the information is about Gay Pride and there is a very limited attempt to create a Straight Pride it would be both very unfair and almost advertising to give both equal weight to then promote the other article as an equal.

I doubt you would find many on the Gay Pride article who would agree either as it would be like creating an article on food and deleting hundreds of other articles on varied and different types. As it is, Gay Pride is notable, but Straight Pride is still being argued about either merge, keep or delete. Thanks Jenova20 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Gay Pride article actually needs a lot of work. There's a few sources which discuss "Pride" as a concept and as a stage of coming out, where actions which were previously considered outrageous are not commonplace. There's no way that article would be able to fit into Pride. I'm not sure that this article would fit in that one either. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Same reason a lot of article on countries aren't featured or even good articles, lost of patriotic and interested editors but too many things to add and everyone fighting over what's notable and what's more important. There's also the trolls and vandals and other articles linking to them that slow things down. That's what i think it is anyway. And a Pride article is a terrible idea as it would sanitize a lot of articles to fit them all in, eg: Irish Pride would be included. Thanks Jenova20 08:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see there is already a Pride article, I don't see why this article shouldn't also have a summary there.

I don't see why Gay Pride article shouldn't be treated exactly the same as this article. Both have sufficient notability per WP:GNG, and both articles should be held to the same standards of WP:NEU.

I worry that there is opposition to this article's existence that steam from WP:IDONTLIKE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Research on the subject shows that LGBT pride (or "gay pride") is a clearly defined phenomenon with virtually hundreds of reliable sources about the subject in the academic and popular literature.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] As far as I can tell, the same cannot be said of "straight pride", which amounts to three guys from the Young Republicans club showing up to school with the words "straight pride" on their t-shirts. The two concepts aren't treated the same because of the problem with sourcing and relevance when it comes to straight pride. It's not a separate phenomenon at all, but a reaction to the primary topic of gay pride. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's debateable whether this subject is indeed notable RightCowLeftCoast. all we have so far is protests by the Ku Kux Klan, school kids, right wing mayors, a poor attempt to link them all and little in the way of media coverage. Thanks Jenova20 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WPConservatism

Hmmmm... looks like the groups who hold "Straight Pride Days" on college campuses are conservative. So is the organization in Brazil sponsoring their "Straight Pride Day." Seems that this event is promulgated by conservative groups. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you add at least one reliable source that explicitly connects the two? We generally don't want editors making that connection. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Found these with little effort: [16] [17]

“ We're here, we're conservative, we're out ”

More where those came from... – Lionel ^(talk) 05:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When we use reliable sources to support our content, we start off by using them unambiguously and explicitly. Later, when we are dealing with non-controversial statements, we have a bit more leeway depending on significance, context, and whether it is of an uncontroversial nature. When we are dealing with controversial topics, it is of utmost importance that we deal with reliable sources in an explicit manner. The sources you cite show a reaction to gay pride events by college groups, one of which is considered fringe. You may want to change your oppose to "support" since you have cited sources supporting the rationale for the merge. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, Viriditas. I was about to say that "Straight Pride" seems conservative (reactionary) by definition and is espoused by various college republican groups and so on, but then I thought better of it as that would be synthesis. I wonder if the peace movement of the sixties might serve to help guide editors of this article. Poorly-defined, largely reactionary, lacking coherent structure and leadership, the movement nonetheless existed. Much wider in scope and more popular, obviously, but the two movements share some characteristics. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt's source says that a group organizing one of these events calls itself conservative. We cannot spin that into "this is a conservative movement". In fact it does not appear to be a movement at all, merely a new campaign by existing right-wing groups. TFD (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely. There's not enough for an article so i think he's trying to tie it directly to his Wikiproject. It's as already noted: WP:OR WP:Synthesis WP:POV

Thanks Jenova20 18:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Before people get carried away with putting words in my mouth: I never said it was "conservative" nor did I say it was a "movement". – Lionel ^(talk) 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This current section i am writing in was created by you trying to link conservatives and Straight Pride and this "Poorly-defined, largely reactionary, lacking coherent structure and leadership, the movement nonetheless existed." is a quote from this section also where you clearly refer to it as a movement.

You make it very difficult to assume Good Faith towards you when you do not play by the same rules as everyone else Lionelt and are somehow able to refute allegations that you made in the first place. Thanks Jenova20 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"where you clearly refer to it as a movement": are you deranged? I did no such thing. Stop making up lies. You are in clear violation of WP:TPNO. "Do not misrepresent other people" Give me a diff or get ready to get your ass dragged to ANI.– Lionel ^(talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest, your threats do not scare me. It's not misrepresentation at all and you should probably use a dictionary before you accuse people of things.

If you want to take me to ANI then go right ahead, the difficult part here will be trying to find a single reply where you actually acted in good faith or in a constructive manner for the good of the article or the Wikipedia community. Thanks Jenova20 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@Jenova—For the record: it was TreacherousWays, not Lionelt, that spoke of it as a "movement"; Lionelt pointed out that the events were being promulgated or sponsored by conservative groups. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. I don't know how i missed that. Thanks Jenova20 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reworded a section of the main para from this:

• ""Straight pride" is a form of conservative backlash as there is no straight or heterosexual civil rights movement. Isolated and unrelated, the relatively few "Straight Pride" incidents have, however, gained some media attention."

To this:

• "Straight pride" is a form of conservative backlash as there is no straight or heterosexual civil rights movement as no heterosexual legal inequality exists. Isolated and unrelated, the relatively few and controversial "Straight Pride" incidents have, however, gained some media attention."

Is that not neutral?

For the last part i would certainly say these protests are controversial as the wording and references in the article say themselves. Thanks i advance of any response Jenova20 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The last part is neutral; it is the 'legal inequality' bit that isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll add it in soon, i'm at 2 reverts at the moment so i can't. Jenova20 19:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, not a problem. :) Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for discussing it with me rather than just yelling vandalism or POV. Jenova20 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done again since the article was almost completely rewrote in the last few hours (again). Seriously it's gettin unworkable to even discuss this article and the future of it with so many changes so often. Jenova20 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done again, This is taking the mick. If there's a problem with pointing out this is controversial then please at least attempt to discuss it on the talk page people. Thanks Jenova20 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research?

" ... Originating during the Culture Wars in the United States, "Straight pride" is a conservative backlash as there is no straight or heterosexual civil rights movement. ... " I corrected the wikilink to the sociology term, but (upon reflection) decided to move this section here for discussion. I would like to see a reference backing the date of inception. Although I agree that the Straight Pride movement is conservative in nature, I would be more comfortable if there was a reference saying so; associating "Straight Pride" with mainstream conservatism while simultaneously downplaying it as being a fringe movement is contradictory. Finally, the sentence identifies Straight Pride as a backlash, but then fails to identify what it is a backlash against. The reason I moved this sentence here was because I was about to type " .... is a conservative backlash against a perceived ubiquity of homosexual behaviour ... " when I realized how much was being assumed by me and other editors. Any thoughts? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you've run up against the reason for the proposed merge, namely, that there is practically no coverage or discussion of "straight pride" as a concept or movement in reliable sources. All we have is isolated, transient, scattered, and totally unrelated incidents or mentions, most of which are of dubious noteworthiness, in which the phrase "straight pride" has been used as an anti-gay slogan, presumably in reaction to the idea of "gay pride". Any attempt to link them together in a stand-alone article is going to be OR and SYNTH. In short, there isn't very much in reliable sources to base a stand-alone article on at all. Hence the merge request listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like reliable proof that it is actually a movement first as that's how all this started in the first place.

All we have so far is a list of incidents where people called for protests against gay pride and LGBT Civil rights and a few odd mayors giving people a straight day, not a movement. Thanks Jenova20 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride is not a movement, as far as I can tell. It is a concept used by people who react to Gay Pride. There is no evidence that SP is a movement, at least none that I have seen. This article should not attempt to establish a "Straight Pride" movement in the absence of reliable sources saying otherwise. That being said, it cannot be denied that the reactionary concept, "Straight Pride" is an international phenomenon. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

At one point, a speedy deletion tag was placed on the article with an invitation to discuss on this talk page. I am rather new to this article's debate and have noted rather intense interest by the editors involved. This article should not be speedily deleted because it has been the object of a rather lengthy discussion on its talk page. Speedy deletion would be unfair to this discussion process. drs (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You think that the fact some editors support the article means it should be kept? TFD (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works through consensus. Editor support is essential, of course. What I meant was that considerable effort has gone into the issues of the article and a "speedy" deletion nomination was unfair. (see my further comment below) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a moot argument. While WP:speedy is a handy tool, it is not meant for all occasions... and there is no category of speedy deletion that applies to this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going for a regular delete but thought A7 would apply (which it doesn't). My mistake.

I was hoping to stimulate a better debate or at least halt the edit warring but neither appears to have happened...

Thanks Jenova20 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• My objection was to the Speedy deletion. If someone wants to send this to AfD, we can discuss it further there. I am not in favor of deletion or merging of this article as I have stated earlier. drs (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Re: edit warring. It is not necessary to edit war if we disagree. I think courtesy is important. A certain amount of benefit comes from bold actions. I think the emphasis on incidents is a plus. drs (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• The KKK section's citation does not reference an event. Rather, it references an underlying strategy. Perhaps we should have a section where Straight Pride ideology can be examined. drs (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I did have a "concept" section when I overhauled the article a few days ago, which referenced both the KKK section and the other interesting source (Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation) - again above. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have started a "Rationale" section and have moved the KKK info to that section. drs (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Donald. Indiscriminately listing non-related events of little of no encyclopedic significance in order to make a connection between them that has not been made in reliable secondary sources is OR and Synth, and a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Furthermore, your sections on rationale is OR, POV and highly dubious, and, of course unsourced. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, the incidents listed do have encyclopedic significance. I have not been attempting to show related events. I have been showing the incidents. Please do not make massive deletions without discussion. It may be time for us to call on other editors to help us solve this, especially if you deleted in this wholesale manner. Let's discuss first. Thanks. I have replace the article before your deletions. This may take further editing. Please, I repeat, do not make massive deletions without discussing first. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And the sentence above it, describing the reasons behind the controversy, which was sourced to an academic paper? Could I ask why you reverted that too? Worm^TT · (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'll reinstate that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

White student union

I've eliminated the unrelated, yet interesting, information on pride confusion because it's conjecture and related to LGBT pride issues, not to the "Straight Pride" slogan. Nonetheless, the White student union info added is excellent as it demonstrates exactly what the opposition/backlash rationale behind straight pride is: tit for tat. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the list of incidents. This has set back some valid changes. I am requesting the massive changes such as Dominus has made not be done without thoughtful discussion here on the talk page. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletions

The deletions recently made have been massive. Please do not delete in such a manner without proper discussion on this talk page. Thanks. If this type of edit warring continues, we may need to seek help from other editors. drs (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed and explained above. Scouring Google and slapdashing together a list of unrelated incedents of dubious or no relevance or significance using your own criteria for selection is original research and synthesis. YOu MUST find secondary sources of a very high level of credibility and reliablity that mention these isolated incidents in a wider context to include them here. The burden is on you to prove that the sources are reliable and that the material is relevant here on the talk page BEFORE you add this. As of now, your additions are completely worthless. Get out there and look for top-notch sources that discuss "straight pride" as a concept or phenomenon first, because right now, this article doesn't even really have a topic. In any case, indiscrimiante lists based on OR and synth are not allowed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dominus, we obviously disagree on the reliability of the sources I have used. We will probably have to ask other editors to help us resolve this difference; perhaps through the RfC process. These incidents have been reported in reliable sources. If you want to challenge the sources used, take one at a time and explain why that particular source is unreliable. My request to not make massive deletions without resolution of these matters stands. Thank you. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Dominus. You have deleted the material again. Fortunately another editor has restored the information. We need to call on other editors, perhaps some admins, to help us resolve this. Please do not make massive deletions without seeking for a consensus on how this article should be developed. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Without painting a target on the back of User:Worm That Turned, he is contributing already to this discussion and he is an admin. Thanks Jenova20 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Worm, if you can help us before we need to RfC or have the page protected for awhile, that would be helpful. We need to slow the editing process for this article down, so we can reach a consensus about its development. It still may be necessary to use RfC process or the article protection process to force us to talk with each other. I remain committed to helping develop this article, as I hope others reading this are. We need help. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn you Jenova! Well I've obviously been watching things when I'm around, but my hands are fairly tied here, I'm involved in the whole debate as I've added a few bits to the article. I'm happy to shout at people who I think have crossed a line, and if there is consensus that the article needs to be protected for say 24 - 48 hours, to allow some more discussion then I'm happy to do that - but I don't see it as absolutely necessary as it's currently just sitting at the "controversial article stage". In other words, happy to help out if I can, but because I've made edits it'd be better to look on my as an editor who's not picking sides, looking for neutrality and good sourcing. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Worm, thanks for the caution. If we don't have major deletions, we probably won't need article protection. But, we do need time to discuss. Dominus and I have differed before. I am surprised at his deletion of hard won editing, the most recent took several hours to add. If we can slow the process down, I think that will help. Most editors have lives outside of Wikipedia and it is shocking to see major deletions when one finally comes on line to help further develop an article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Donald: Source reliability is only part of the problem. You violated a whole load of other policies, too. We don't need an RfC. YOU just need to read and adhere to our policies. Your request is unjustified, and hereby denied. YOU must prove that the material you want to add conforms to our policies and is relevant and well sourced. That is YOUR job. Do YOUR work BEFORE you add material like this, and there will be no problem. And YOU do that all on here on the talk page fisrt BEFORE you add the material again. You violated WP:BRD bt re-adding this material without discussing it on the talk page first.

Again, you have a major problem with focus and scope. One of the incidents you wanted to add was sourced by an article on the "News of the Weird" page of a local newspaper. That should have given you a clue about the significance and relevance of that material. NONE of your sources described any of the incidents in a broader context that could be said to justify connecting them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, I disagree about our need for the RfC process. But, our discussion at least has begun. Thank you for that. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

These deletions - amounting to removing well over half the article without stating any policy in the removal - are obviously inappropriate. Dominis Vobisdu should have at least discussed before removing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Donald should have discussed before adding. And re-adding. And so should have you. I have well justified my deleions according to policy. You hand Donald have done nothing. The problem wan't massive deletion, but massive addition. Of worthless junk. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, to oppose massive additions is like telling a WP editor not to work hard on an article. What is one person's junk is another person's treasure. I try very hard not to make major changes to another editor's effort and if I do, I will often invite a revert in my note. I find your calling my work "worthless junk" offensive. But, let's continue to examine our differences. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus weird news is not unreliable news. Can you show that Boca News is an unreliable source? This is quite a charge against a local newspaper of no small repute. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that the source was unreilable. I said that the fact that the newpaper decided to publish it on their "News of the Weird" column shows that they considered it of minor significance or importance. Which means that we should, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But, as we seek to establish the "Straight Pride" phenomena, minor and major stories are helpful. When you deleted that whole section there were other stories, one from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They certainly considered the story worthy of national attention. It may be helpful for us to list the sources and examine each one like we are doing here for the Boka News story. Further to Boka's weird news section, I agree that placing a news item there is a way of saying this is not a major news story. But, who is to say that it is unworthy of inclusion in a WP article. Is there a WP policy that such a segment should not be used in an article? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me - I've been keeping away from obviously biased sources like PinkNews or Christian Science Monitor - if we go through each of the new addition's sources, discuss them - that sounds like the best plan. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Donald: Bingo! That's the problem. YOU are trying to "establish the Straight Pride phenomena" YOURSELF, instead of relying on reliable sources which discuss it as a phenomenon THEY have established it, or found it already established. That is the definition of OR and Synth, and you are not allowed to do that on WP. Period. If we can't find top-notch sources discussing the topic as an already established one, than we as WP editors have no right to establish it ourselves.

If these isolated incidents are not discussed as part of a bigger phenomen in top-quality reliable sources of more than local interest, then we as WP editors cannot give them any more significance than that. So far, all of the sources you have cited treat these incidents as isolated incidents with no connection to anything elese except perhaps LGBT rights events that happened at about the same time. For you to connect indiscrimiantely assembled incidents into a list is synthesis. Read the policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:COATRACK.

@Worm: The problem extends far beyond sourcing. The main problem is OR, Synth and Coatracking. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is no "co-ordinated" straight pride movement doesn't mean the terms don't exist and aren't used by specific groups. COATRACK is a big problem, which is why we must be careful. Synth/OR is a bit more difficult - we should be looking to agree what should and shouldn't be included in the article. For example, Chambers v Babbitt should be there, a student forced to remove a "Straight Pride" T-shirt and the resulting court case - that's a clear yes. Do we have clear 'no's? Do we have a clear idea of what makes a yes and what makes a no? Worm^TT · (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

While it makes sense to connect these events, we need a source that does that per synthesis. Incidentally the Christian Science Monitor is a perfectly good source and highly respected newspaper. TFD (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WRT Christian Science Monitor - it depends on the subject and the article - but I take your point. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@WORM: An indiscriminate list of incidents which garner only minor and transient news coverage and are not discussed in any context of "straight pride" other than that it was used as a slogan is clearly out of the question. That covers all of the incidents that I deleted. Events that were planned and never came to fruition are likewise not worthy of mention. These are trivial PR stunts, and therefore not noteworthy or encyclopedic. Any list that is assembled solely by WP editors and is not based on similar lists found in reliable secondary sources is also out of the question. That clearly violates WP:NOR and WP:COATRACK.

Actually, I oppose any moves that attempt to create a "phenomenon" OR "movement" where none exists in top-notch reliable sources, or to aggrandize incidents of little, if any, significance or relevance. You would do best by finding top-quality sources that discuss "straight pride" as an already established phenomenon, and select incidents based on those listed in such sources. Obviously, local, religious, politically motivated and "for-entertainment-purposes-only" sources are out. I'm talking about genuine academic or high-level journalistic sources that have substantial expertise in researching and reporting on phenomena of this type. If the "phenomenon" cannot be found there, it doesn't exist at all as far as I am concerned. Trying to build the article from the bottom up is definitely the wrong approach.

As for the sources I didn't delete, I have my doubts about those, too. None is a "clear yes" for me. The problem is that none of them are discussed by reliable sources in a greater context of "straight pride". No connections are made that could justify categorizing them as part of a larger "phenomenon". Quite the opposite, in fact. ALL of the incidents mentioned here are treated as isolated incidents.

Also agree that Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. That's not the problem, though, as they did not consider the story significant enough to follow up on. Nor, apparently, has anyone else. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So wouldn't this be easier to do if the page was merged into Gay Pride where the requirements for inclusion are slightly lower and there's already a counter argument set up and a clear objective?

We can have a list simpler there than here as it can be shown in context easier and with less sources. The last few days here has only shown that no one here can really agree what's notable and what isn't and what should and shouldn't be included. Thanks Jenova20 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely support a merge. I don't hold out much hope that this article will ever meet our standards. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't get dejected, Dominus, we'll get this straightened out, have faith. I agree with Worm, "Just because there is no "co-ordinated" straight pride movement doesn't mean the terms don't exist and aren't used by specific groups." I see no reason why we're deleting reliably sourced content. WP:V is one of our 5 pillars: it must be adhered to.

And Dom--you don't mind if I call you Dom--please try to keep the reverts under 10RR, OK? Yesterday I stopped counting at 7RR, and today a quick glance puts you at 4RR. And that's after only 3 hours. At this rate you'll be at 32RR by the end of the 24-hour window.– Lionel ^(talk) 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make major changes for another week or so.

Hi all editors interested in the Straight Pride article. Over the last two days, we have experienced some rather civil discussions of our differences. I have appreciated that. Let's agree to not make any major changes to the article for a week or so. This will allow us to seek informal counsel and discuss further with each other. Comments and thoughts are welcomed about this, as well. (In this way, we can avoid seeking protection status for the article.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Incidents section, citations and purpose

This section is for the examination of the Incidents section of the Straight Pride article.

Why have an incidents section?

The focus of this article is on the slogan and concept of "Straight Pride". If one person in the world referred to "Straight Pride", that would not be very notable. If people around the world use it, that seems more notable. The incidents section demonstrates the notability of "Straight Pride" as a topic for Wikipedia to treat.

No. For an incident to be listed here, it has had to been discussed by reliable sources as an example of "straight pride" in a wide sense, rather than as an isolated incident unrelated to any other such incidents. In other words, we have to show, using relaible sources, that the incident is part of something bigger than itself, specifically as far as "straight pride" is concerned. The reliable sources have to make the connection. We can't (that would be OR and Synth).

And we need SOLID reliable sources discussing substantially what that something bigger is. Examples should be chosen on the basis of those sources. Right now, this article lacks such sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, I see what you are saying. However, the term or concept must be shown to be notable. In other words, it must be referred to, or used, by people of note and institutions of note. I am open to the help of other editors, if my thinking can be shown to be incorrect. Dominus, thank you for your continued efforts to help me see your point of view. drs (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the problem is that these events are not individually notable (WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS) and making a list of them doesn't erase this fact. I'm sure I could also make a news-sourced list of, to choose a few things at random, hit-and-run incidents, charity sports games, or embezzlement cases, but these things would not add to the encyclopedic value of the articles (if such exist) on those subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Roscelese. Enduring news does seem to be an important standard. drs (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two concepts a work here. Notability referes to the topic of the article. Has "straight pride" been discussed in depth in multiple heavy-duty reliable SECONDARY sources? So far, no such sources have been found. None of the sources for the incidents you've added qualify, as none of them talk about "straight pride" in depth as a concept, phenomenon or movement, or even as a slogan. Without such a source, this article is doomed.

The other concept is noteworthiness, and that applies to the incidents themselves. Is the incident relevant to the topic of the article, which is "straight pride" in a larger sense? Have the news reports made a connection between a given incident and "straight pride" in a larger sense? Has a given event been used as an example of "straight pride" in a larger sense by any reliable secondary sources?

In short, we rely on the experts to sift through news reports and decide which incidents are significant or not. News reports treating the incident as an isolated incident do not establish relevance or noteworthiness, especially if the coverage is minor and ephemeral. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments presented here to censor content are not persuasive. But before we go any further, let's get something straight: we're not going to setup an arbitrary stringent requirement for sources here. This is not BLP. We are not going to restrict this article to "SOLID" (shouting not mine) sources, nor will we require "multiple heavy-duty reliable SECONDARY" (again shouting not mine) sources. Were not going to move the goalposts just because this is an anti-gay article. We're going to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS: nothing more, nothing less.

WP:EVENT is not applicable here as it applies to standaline articles. And this article passes WP:NOT#NEWS. Straight pride events are "enduring." They have been taking place for 21 years.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not going to "get straight" that we should ignore the WP:GNG questions. Pinning together disparate events with different names, different organizers, and different motivations as though they are one enduring thing seems an uphill battle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Are the specific incidents notable and cited by notable sources?

• I have removed the Calmar, Alberta story because, on further reflection, I agree with Dominus that the story is trivial. I say this because the town is small and the story seems to suggest that the mayor did this unilaterally with very little intended impact. drs (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is a minimum requirement. Incidents not linked by reliable sources to "straight pride" in a larger sense cannot be listed even if they have been reported in reliable sources.

1991, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In 1991, a group of conservative organizations at University of Massachusetts organized a "Straight Pride" rally, which was attended by about 50 people. A crowd ten times that size protested the rally.

• This event was included in the article before the current dispute arose. Why is it acceptable? I am okay with it. I am asking the question to clarify our thinking. drs (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This ones definitely ok, it's sourced reliably, it got enough attention to attract a sizeable counter-protest. Jenova20 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NYT provides no evidence that the incident was linked to any other incidents or to "straight pride" in a larger sense. It may be notable as an example of an anti-gay protest, but not as an example of "straight pride". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This event should obviously be kept and expanded. The propose of the event was to express pride in heterosexuality and to protest equal rights for homosexuals. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2005, Yellowknife, Canada

On May 25, 2005, CBC News announced "Yellowknife to mark gay and straight pride". The mayor of Yellowknife proclaimed June 10, 2005 as Gay Pride Day. In response, Councillor Alan Woytuik proposed that there be a Heterosexual Day. The mayor agreed and proclaimed it for June 9. Woytuik defended the proposal for Heterosexual Day by stating that "recognizing the contributions of heterosexuals is just as legitimate as recognizing the contributions of gay and lesbian communities."

In response Don Babey of the group that made the initial request for Gay Pride Day asked if Black History Month will be partnered with White Heritage Month and will days marking heart disease and strokes be paired with an equal number of days that will celebrate good health?

• This story is notable in that Yellowknife is a regional capital in Canada and that the CBC, Canada's nationally owned radio included it in its broadcasting. It also provides a citation for the kind of thinking both sides of the controversy use regarding "Straight Pride." Woytuik defends on the basis of equality. Babey opposes on the basis of need to focus. Also, not mentioned in the WP article but is in the CBC report is a quote from another councilor who considered the Straight Pride Day to be an embarrassment whereas he considered the Gay Pride Day to be a legitimate enterprise. drs (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, CBC provides no information that this was anything more than a PR stunt by a local looney acting alone. They make no connection to other "straight pride" events or to "straight pride" in a larger sense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "Straight Pride" appears nowhere in the two source articles themselves. It only appears in the headlines. We generally do not consider headlines to be a source of factual information; they are at best a too-brief and frequently lurid version of the actual content of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Straight pride" is in the headline, "heterosexual pride" in the body. And the event gained the imprimatur of the city when the mayor made the proclamation. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2010, American Tea Party movement

"Straight Pride" t-shirts have been sold at American Tea Party protests.

• This fact was included in the article before the current dispute arose. drs (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same as above. No explicit evidence of being anything other than an isolated event. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2010, Budapest Hungary

In the summer of 2010, the Hungarian news wire agency, Magyar Távirati Iroda (MTI), reported on a heterosexual pride march in Budapest. One hundred people participated including two radical nationalist politicians. They followed the route of an earlier gay pride parade. The march's goal was to prevent future homosexual use of public spaces.

• This report further establishes the notability of the "Straight Pride" or "Heterosexual Pride" concept as a rallying point. It further demonstrates that the use of "heterosexual pride" is a reaction against the Gay Pride movement. It also shows that the term is used outside of North America. MTI is a notable news source. drs (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. No connection to other incidents or to "straight pride" in the larger sense. Actually, there's no connection to "straight pride" at all. The organizer specifically "said the aim of the march was to prevent homosexuals from using public spaces for their gatherings." Nothing about demonstrating "straight pride" as a goal. The fact that it demonstrates that the use of "heterosexual pride" is a reaction against the Gay Pride movement is a reason to merge this article into that article. Frankly, though, this particular incident will probably fail on noteworthiness and relevance grounds at that article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2011, Sao Paulo, Brazil

In August, 2011, the city council of São Paulo, Brazil, the largest city in South America and site of a huge gay pride celebration, voted to designate the third Sunday in December as Heterosexual Pride Day. For the city council's action to become law the mayor needed to sign it. There is no record that he did so.

• This event is notable. It received considerable press coverage from many different sources. A list of the various news media which reported on it can be provided here if that will help. drs (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, neither the Advocate nor the Christian Science Monitor discussed this event as part of something larger. On the purpose of his actions, the organizer said: "The creation of Heterosexual Day does not symbolize a struggle against gays but against what I believe are excesses and privileges.” Nothing about "straight pride" being a motive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, thanks for your input. The Straight Pride WP article does not have to address a larger context if there is no larger context. In other words, the usage of "Straight Pride" seems to be a spontaneous response to the usage of "Gay Pride". It seems noteworthy that the term "Straight Pride" or "Heterosexual Pride" has such a wide-ranging international usage. This is a fact not something contrived through synthesis. drs (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't expect we will agree on this. If other editors reading this can give their thoughts, that would be helpful. If I can be convinced that others share your viewpoint and that none oppose it, I am willing to learn. Thanks. drs (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is no larger context, there is no justification for having an article at all (which is why it has been proposed that this artile be merged). It would just be an indiscriminate list of unrelated items assembled by WP editors using their own criteria and inventing a larger context on their own (which is exactly what it is now). This would be dishonest, as you would be stating that the items in the list are in some significant way related to "straight pride" and add up to a whole when no reliable sources say that. In fact, none of the sources you've used for these incidents discuss "straight pride" at all except to say that it was used as a slogan (and that is not a good enough basis for a list). Many of the sources state the motives behind the incidents, and none of them have anything to do with "straight pride" (They mostly have to do with demonstrating opposition to LGBT-related events, or to LGBT rights in general). Such a list would have no encyclopedic value.

Our policies are very clear, and all content you wish to introduce absolutely must conform with our policies. Consensus can't trump policy, and "viewpoints" don't count for much, except the viewpoint of the policies. Again, read the following policies, guidelines and essays VERY carefully, trying to understand them as a whole: WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:EVENT, WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTDIR, WP:COATRACK and WP:LISTCRUFT. A lot of what you are saying fundamentally conflicts with these policies and guidelines. Feel free to ask for clarification on my talk page. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidents references

References

More on merge (Move from Sao Paolo)

A merge is the best thing but the longer this drags on the more likely it is that it will just be deleted after weeks of edit warring and refusal to accept policy. Thanks Jenova20 18:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Jenova, I think as we seek wider counsel, it will become more obvious what to do: keep the article, merge the article or delete the article. The issue presently, for me and perhaps others, is the value of including international accounts of "Straight Pride" events. I have found very little philosophical discussion about the term. Most of such discussion focuses on the court cases dealing with freedom of expression in a high school setting. We have identified two such cases in the article. Another area of interest perhaps is how Straight Pride shows up in writings of fiction. There seems to be a few books which mention the term. There exists a usage of the term which we have documented with reliable citations. It is to the benefit of our WP readership to make sure that the facts are shown. If a merge is decided upon in the end, there should be a redirect from a "Straight Pride" search. However, as we find more usage of the term, a merge may create undue weight if the article should be merged with "Gay Pride". Also, do we know whether the editors working on the "Gay Pride" article want such a merge? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're creating a page which documents every usage of the term, whether or not they are related to each other in any way, well, that's not the purpose of an article; it's more the purpose of a disambiguation page. Barring some significant reliable source relating these things, even if we think they're similar, we don't have a proper article. And even following a merge, there is nothing requiring us to include every single use of the term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think by your own argument you just showed how this article is barely notable Donald. Finding every vague reference to "Straight Pride" and linking it is hugely POV without reliable sources, and in fact creating an article around it is in breach of about 10 policies as pointed out above.

My argument...latch these onto the argument they are linked with and wouldn't exist without (Gay pride) and the inclusion criteria is lessened, making it easier to add stuff. But you won't accept this. Thanks Jenova20 08:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The media reports are reliable. The events reported significantly impacted the places where they happened. These type of events have happened in various settings around the world. The term "Straight Pride" is a notable term, as these incident reports demonstrate. Also, our Wikipedia readership are benefited from knowing about how this term is used around the world and the stories connected to it. This can be accomplished with it part of the Gay Pride article or, as it is now, in its own article. Either way, the worldwide phenomena of the usage of the term "Straight Pride" is a notable one, worthy of Wikipedia's attention. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• And i could find many reliable references to people eating oranges and the disruption and damage to economies if orange production was stopped...but i can't prove there's a movement for people eating oranges just because there might be one for apples. Thanks Jenova20 09:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If it was a worldwide phenomenon worthy of note, we would expect significant sources to have noted it as such a phenomenon. I'm not seeing much in the way of such coverage. For us to try to combine various isolated incidents into a phenomenon is WP:SYNTH. There are people being named James Robertson all over the place, but we don't try to tie those disparate people into a phenomenon; we give them a disambiguation page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there's a James Robertson movement? =P

Seriously though we're saying the same thing over and over and getting nowhere. Jenova20 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Agree; if the article isn't merged or deleted, it should be converted to a bare "List of straight pride incidents" and left at that. It's pretty clear we're going to need at least one formal RFC to move forward. AV3000 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and continue to oppose merging or deletion. Although the term "movement" may be incorrect, the term "straight pride" exists, is documented in various instances at various locations, and has been reported by reliable sources. Notability may be debatable, but that's not quite the same thing, and that issue ought to be debated on its own merits. I stated before - and reiterate my opinion - that this is largely a disorganized sentiment rather than an organized movement. But so was the (much larger) peace movement of the 60's. Trying to link it to racist or hate groups is coatracking, speculative, and a disservice to readers coming to wikipedia for unbiased factual information. A short article about this marginally notable ... what? Philosophy? Point of view? ... descriptively and neutrally summing up the best-identified facts and chracteristics is what we should be aiming for. Based on what I've read so far, deleting this article - or hiding it snidely in "gay pride" - could be interpreted as biased. I say leave it, edit it, and improve it. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with about half of your statement. This could be a redirect to Gay pride and list most of these examples already given in a correct context rather than listing this as a disambiguation page or a list of separate events. What's better for the reader - A random list of events or a peaceful 60s movement and examples of a counter-protest/movement from people who think equality has gone too far (unlikely but possible).

The fact of the matter is we can't even decide if this is notable, so without a merge you risk losing everything here and we'll have all wasted 2/3 weeks, whereas the scale of inclusion is much better when you attach it to another article.

Now when i bought this requested merge up the first time i was nice, i proposed linking it to Gay pride.

This article is also a candidate for a merge with Homophobia more than gay pride as that's what most of your sources show. And had i not been such a nice person and intent on keeping this i could have tried to merge it with that article instead.

Think it over, thanks Jenova20 18:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole effort to merge with Gay Pride is ludicrous. Straight pride is not oppositive to gay pride. We must give consideration to the statements of straight pride proponents. Heretofore they have been censored, and only anti-straight pride POV rhetoric kept. Straight pride events, according to event sponsors, are held to address these issues:

1. Counter-protest to Day of Silence, Ally Week
2. Reaction to special priviledges afforded to homosexuals and the double standard
3. A means of exposing the homosexual agenda

– Lionel ^(talk) 21:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you just put the final nail in the coffin of this as an independent article, and that you've made a very compelling argument for a merge? Not, as you said, to the article on Gay Pride but to the article on LGBT rights opposition. You've demonstrated that "Straight Pride" is nothing more than a synonym for LGBT Rights Opposition, or rather, a slogan used by LGBT rights opponents to express their opposition, according to the statements of the proponents themselves. With that, you kicked the chair out from under "Straight Pride" as a topic in its own right, and pointed out that this article is merely a content fork of the other. I support the merge of this article to LGBT rights opposition. As for the events themselves, they will have to sink or swim in terms of relevance to that article. Most will sink, as they are one-time minor events that have had little lasting coverage, significance or effect to make them noteworthy in comparison to more sustained efforts like NOM and the RCC. They are going to be very small fish in a much bigger pond. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The high school incidents are noteworthy in the context of free speech or first amendment rights. While probably not noteworthy enough for the top-level article on Free speech in the United States, they would be right at home in School speech (First Amendment). They probably don't have a snowball's chance in the article on LGBT rights opposition, because of their limited scope and effect in that context. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on Gay pride and had already merged the directly related material here into the GP article. So, fine by me. However, the same disparate info really ought to be merged into LGBT rights opposition, too. You'll see that _all_ the contributors are making such a move entirely possible through their edits. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia provides its readership with a window on the world. The Straight Pride reaction to Gay Pride is part of the world. Wikipedia should capture that. How it does so, is part of what we, as editors, are discussing here. The specific question which interests me at this point is how a WP article should manage a "flash in the pan" event covered in reliable sources. I removed the Calmar, Alberta report because it obvious had little coverage in the media. The Yellowknife event has a human interest quality and was covered nationwide. It too was simply an event over the duration of a week. The Sao Paulo town council decision caught the attention of the world's media and was reported far and wide. It too has gone by the wayside and is not discussed in journals or books, as far as I can tell. The Straight Pride notion endures and rises onto the stage from time to time. If a person hears of Straight Pride and turns to Wikipedia for further information, that person should find enough information to understand the usage of the term. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a merge, entering "Straight pride" into Wikipedia will take people to the gay pride article, likely right to a "Straight pride" section of the article. I can't say that the section would make them understand the usage of the term, but it would likely not fail worse than this separate article does. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Or to the LGBT rights opposition article, which IMHO is a better merge topic than Gay Pride. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, whichever article it's merged with, the merge will presumably include a redirect (it's standard in such instances.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@Donald: No. That is not WP's mission, and what you've written conflicts with our policies, like WP:NOTDIR, which specifically states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed." WP provides only information from recognized experts writing in reliable sources. If it doesn't exist there, then it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned.

Second of all, I find it baffling that you think that it so remarkable that scattered isolated anti-gay demonstrations use the slogan "straight pride". The explanation is really banal: it's because the LGBT events and causes that they are a reaction to are often named "Gay Pride" events. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence or creativity to name one's reaction to them "Straight Pride". It doesn't indicate that there is any kind of international "Straight Pride" phenomenon/movement/cause/whatever.

Third of all, you are still trying to make a connection between unrelated events that no experts in reliable sources have ever made. And you are trying to create a phenomenon/movement/cause/whatever where none exists in reliable sources. That is, for the upteenth time, OR and Synth. Please, Donald, read our policies and understand them as a whole. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And many of the incidents currently listed don't even involve the phrase "Straight pride" -- Yellowcake, Budapest, Sao Paolo. That makes it particularly aggressive WP:SYNTH here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note at the top of the article the term "Straight Pride" is identified with "Heterosexual Pride". The two terms are understood to be the same meaning for the purposes of this article. In fact, "Heterosexual Pride" seems to be used more widely outside of North America than "Straight Pride". DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes - that claim is unsourced and just seems an attempt to build a WP:COATRACK. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps that will need to be discussed at some time, but I see no difference. The two notions are identical. They mean the same thing. From my view, the two words belong together. They are treated interchangeably in some of the reliable sources, as well. For example consider Kainz' Politically Incorrect Dialogues and notice the connection between the two terms here. All the best. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you see no difference is immaterial. This article is not here to document your beliefs. Of the two sources you just linked to, one never mentions "heterosexual pride", the other quotes a source of dubious importance listing that and "'Straight' Pride" as two different possible type of parades that could exist, not even addressing it as something which does exist, so it cannot be seen as addressing any actual usage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dominus, I am not advocating a directory. I appreciate Wikipedia's ability to capture what interests people. If solid reliable sources can show this interest, then on with it. I believe that we serve the WP readership by helping them understand the usage of the term Straight Pride as it is discussed, or mentioned, in reliable sources. Think of it this way: I look out my window and I see something of interest. I then look at the sources. If I can find enough reliable sources, then I should perhaps start a WP article on it. If I have time, of course. Wikipedia has become the best resource in the world because of this. Thanks for your continued interest. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you will have to find solid reliable sources. Right now, there are none, and my search turned up nothing substantial. Nor has anyone else turned up anything substantial. At this point, it's not unreasonable for me to conclude that no such sources exist because no serious journalists or scholars have found the subject interesting enough to explore in depth. The burden is on you to convince me otherwise. Without sources to connect these incidents and put them in perspective as part of a whole, there simply is no basis for an article or list.

Google searching for incidents and sources for them is pretty much a waste of time if sources cannot be found to unify them in terms of a general concept. That's like giving Christmas tree ornaments to a friend who's a Jehovah's Witness. No matter how expensive and beautiful those ornaments may be, they're going to end up unused and packed away somewhere, because Jehovah's Witnesses don't put up Christmas trees. The tree simply doesn't exist in their home, just like the generalized concept of "Straight Pride" doesn't exist in the reliable sources (except as a code word and synonym for LGBT rights opposition or in the context of free speech, for the high school cases).

Find reliable sources, and we have something to discuss. Without reliable sources though, you're wasting your time. Work from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• It seems we are at an impasse. As you know, I am not the only one who considers the concept of Straight Pride, or Heterosexual Pride, to have enough reliable sources to receive attention. Some want that attention as a section in some other article; some advocate that the term be developed as its own article. At some point the issue will need to be resolved. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you push against a merge and this ultimately results in no consensus then I will push for it to be deleted in it's entirety. There is only so many times Wp:Synth Wp:Or Wp:Coat rack Wp:Pov can be bought up. Changing the subject or arguing back does not change that it clearly breaches these policies and this has taken far too long for the refusal to accept that. This needs to be taken seriously, most of the stuff here is unusable and shows nothing but isolated incidents. Thanks Jenova20 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• If there is no consensus for a merge and you immediately push for a full deletion, that is blatant disruption. Pitching a fit over not getting your way is not the proper method to solve disputes. Maybe instead of trying to disrupt it to force a point, you could help improve it - I doubt you'd want a good article on this topic, but the option is there nonetheless. Toa Nidhiki05 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFD is not a "disruption"; it is a normal and appropriate process to be done for articles which one feels does not meet the standards for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If one is threatening other editors with it so as to try and coerce them into accepting his demands, it is. Jenova40's comment was not a good faith one, it was one of 'do this or I am going to do something even worse than what will happen if I get my way'. That's not good faith editing, that is disruption. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Toa Nidhiki05: !Votes mean absolutely nothing without policy and reliable sources to back them up. So far, none of those opposing the merge have produced either, including you. I intend to again delete the bulk of the article, unless someone produces solid reliable sources and justifies the content with solid arguments based on policy. If you have any reliable sources to add or policy-based arguments to make about improving the article, make them. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time (which is your right), and ours (which isn't). Put up or shut up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no consensus to do so and it will be reverted if you do. This article has plenty of reliable sources (it would have many more if you didn't object to every single proposed one) and the confrontational, absolute rejectionist stances you and Jenova hold are the ones preventing improvement to this article. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are not, and never have been, any sources at all justifying the linking of these isolated events. If you revert again without a solid policy-based reason and discussion on the talk page, as you did twice in the past in violation of WP:BRD, you will be taken to ANI for disruptive editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and try, but I think you'll have a bit of difficulty in proving my four edits to this page have been 'disruptive' - especially when such a complaint would come from a user who has made at least thirteen reverts over the past six days, removed massive amounts of content without discussion and violated WP:BRD. Toa Nidhiki05

What? Still no relaible sources? Still no policy-based arguments? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You certainly don't seem to have any to request a block of me, no. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is the epitome of ludicrousness for Dominus to be threatening anyone--why you have not been blocked for 1,000,000RR is beyond me. Dominus: you have no consensus to censor the article. Start reverting content again and admins will not be able to ingore your incessant edit warring.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominus as far as i'm aware there's been around 5+ policies bought up so far that this article breaches and there is no consensus on notability, do what you have to.

The opposing side has treated this as a vote from step one and there is not a single policy or drop of consensus to keeping this article from being merged. It's already being added to other articles along the lines of Gay pride, LGBT rights opposition, homophobia? so there will soon be no reason for this article to exist as anything other than a redirect.

And regarding the threats now starting, cut it out everyone as it's just disruptive. Thanks Jenova20 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is backwards. Radical actions (such as elimination of the article by merger or deletion) are what requires a consensus. It does not require a consensus to not take the deletion (e.g. merge) action. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does when the issue is controversial and the options are delete or merge. There is no rational or WP:approved way to keep it as is North, just as on the Homophobia talk page you do not appear to have knowledge of Wikipedia policies so please do not assert that your position is correct when it is infact wrong. Thanks Jenova20 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@North8000: Bullshit. Our policies clearly place the burden on anyone adding or restoring material to prove that it is relaibly sourced, relevant and noteworthy. The problem here is not that the sources are unrelaible, but that the incidents are irrelevant, because there is nothing that they can be relevant to, except, perhaps, LGBT rights opposition in general, hence the merge proposal. There is no evidence that the events in the list have anything in common except opposition to LGBT rights, and the fact that they coincidentally use the same or similar slogans, which is trivial and banal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating (to put it nicely) two different things. I was noting that a consensus is required to delete an article, vs. an incorrect assertion of the reverse. You are claiming three criteria for presence of material in an article. Only one of those three is an actual criteria (although I have been advocating that one of your other ones, relevancy, be added) even presence of material in an article. And it has no relevance to what you were trying to establish with it which is, I believe, that a consensus to keep an article is required to keep it, where the reverse is the actual standard. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I conflated two of your posts. You are correct about consensus for a merge, and I am not advocating what you thought I was. My mistake. As for relevance, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:COATRACK and WP:STANDALONE. At this point, consensus is solidly for the merge. Those opposed have not yet provided any policy-based arguments or produced any sources justifying the existence of this as a separate article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You lie. Consensus is NOT in favor of a merge. At all. Out of 15 participants, what you support was rejected 2-1. Additionally, there have been policy and RS arguments, but you apparently choose to ignore or unilaterally reject the sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Show a single policy based argument against a merge on this page Toa that wasn't a simple vote. Thanks Jenova20 15:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Show a single policy based argument against a merge on this page Toa that wasn't a simple vote. Thanks Jenova20 15:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt and Anupom. Regardless of how you feel consensus is, anyone who looks at a merge discussion where 'keep' is supported over 'merge' 2-1 would be rather hard-pressed to declare 'consensus' in the opposite direction. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt's argument is essentially WP:GOOGLEHITS. Anupams' was WP:ITSNOTABLE. Not compelling arguments, by a long shot. But a lot better than yours, which was totally irrelavant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu says above " ... and the options are delete or merge ... " I would like to point out the third option which is, of course, really the first option: keep and improve the article. I find myself saying this over and over - Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Just because veterans of Vietnam don't like reading about My Lai doesn't mean that they get to delete that article as "banal" or "trivial". Editors have advanced arguments regarding notability, and have provided reliable sources documenting facts; in my opinion this article meets the established standards. I think that you - and others - are being disingenuous in suggesting that a decision regarding the disposition of this article is somehow settled, ignoring the good-faith comments made by those who oppose that viewpoint. In any case, it has been stated above that a move or merge without consensus would be reverted. Therefore, if you want to submit this to Afd, please do so. Perhaps fresh eyes would be best. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is NO consensus for a merge. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE. Arguments count, not numbers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I quote myself: " ... Editors have advanced arguments regarding notability, and have provided reliable sources documenting facts ... " The question of notability is the only pivotal one, to my mind. Before this article could be merged with another, you would need to demonstrate that the topic wasn't notable. I don't see how you could do that. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONTENTFORK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

" ... (a content fork) is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage ... " But I don't think that's what you mean. As I understand it this discussion centers around the idea that "Straight Pride" is or is not a stand-alone issue, and that relates directly to notability. There can be no doubt that the Gay Pride movement is much more significant. There can be little reasonable doubt that Straight Pride exists as a response to the Gay Pride movement. But (though the article doesn't yet explore this) Straight Pride can also be reasonably linked to reverse discrimination, the tyrrany of the minority, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and (in the extreme) the ongoing debate about which public restrooms are appropriate for transgendered persons. The effort to merge this article is premature, ignores a lack of consensus, and is a gut-level response to what is perceived as a bigoted and homophobic topic as opposed to a thoughtful effort to neutrally consider its viability and scope. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a doubt as to whether "Straight Pride" exists at all except as a slogan. There is nothing in any of the sources to link uses of this and similar slogans together into any type of "phenomenon". Except for the Chicago times op-ed, none of the sources discuss "straight pride" at all, and that ope-ed soes not describe it as a movement or philosophy, but as a vulgar expression. Sorry, but in three days I'm calling for an administrative close. This article is on a stay of execution as it is per Donald's request, so asking for more time is unreasonable, especially if all you have to offer is faint hopes and dreams. None of the sources found to date discuss "straight pride" as connected to reverse discrimination, the tyrrany of the minority, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and (in the extreme) the ongoing debate about which public restrooms are appropriate for transgendered persons. And I highly doubt that any exist. Your speculation that they might is not very compelling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)