Talk:LGBT pride/Archive 1

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 - 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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! CaveatLectorTalk 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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.) CaveatLectorTalk 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.  CaveatLectorTalk 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. CaveatLectorTalk 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)

"Homosexual" mannequins
I've removed following section added by anon. Seems too unimportant to me. -- tasc talkdeeds 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A Macy's East store in Boston MA on 6/6/2006 touched off a national public relations firestorm when it bowed to pressure from a local anti-gay group and removed two "homosexual mannequins" from a window display promoting Boston's Annual Pride Celebration.

Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino called the decision by Macy’s to alter the window in response to complaints "unfortunate." "I’m very surprised that Macy’s would bend to that type of pressure," said Menino. “Macy’s was celebrating a part of our community, gay Pride, and they should be proud of the gay community, and I’m proud of the gay community and gay Pride. Once again it’s the radical right wing that’s doing this. They don’t represent the people. Their motto is, we’ve had enough of 'them'."

A spokeperson for the groups stated to the press: "Basically, here you have two apparently homosexual men touching each other, both of them with big breasts that are unlike any mannequin anyone’s ever seen. A number of people are getting a little tired of having homosexuality pushed in their faces".

The mannequins used in the window display clearly were designed to look like young athletic males with developed pectoral muscles - not breasts.

Macy's further upset the gay community by removing from the display the website address for a local Aids Action Committee. AIDS prevention continues to be a major theme of the Boston Pride celebration.

The Boston Pride Committee, which organizes Gay Pride Week, serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by promoting tolerance and awareness. Linda DeMarco, president of Boston Pride, told reporters she was disappointed by Macy’s decision, though she praised them for not taking the exhibit down entirely. "I’m disappointed because I thought Macy’s was a little stronger than that. I give them credit for not breaking down completely, but I would at least have appreciated them calling the Pride committee or going to the Web site and seeing that it is not a threat and certainly seeing that the AIDS Action Web site was not a threat."

ACLU of Massachusetts spokeswoman Sarah Wunsch criticized Macy's for "succumbing to the bigotry" of what she said was a fringe anti-gay group.

The group involved is opposed to same-sex marriage (in a state where the democratic judicial system made same-sex marriage legal in 2004) and gay-straight alliance clubs in public schools and are known to seek out gay visibility and signs of acceptance to protest.

The Macy’s display window was in step with Boston's community standard of diversity and was just one of several public displays and advertisements marking Boston Pride June 10. Boston City Hall had raised the Pride Flag on June 2, Faneuil Hall Marketplace held a Pride event June 3, and signs advertising Pride are up on street lights around Boston Common which host the Pride Festival also on June 10. Mayor Menino said a small but vocal group have called City Hall to complain about the Pride flag raising, but he has no intention of bowing to pressure. "They call, but I treat them like they’re a piece of wet paper", said Menino. "They’ll disappear eventually. I don’t take them very seriously."

Macy's community public relations misstep gained national attention after the story was included on a lead story on The Drudge Report website on 6/7/06.

A national boycott campaign has begun calling for consumers - straight or gay - offended by Macy's decision to appease bigotry to cut up and return their credits to Macy's with a request to cancel their accounts.

The boycott is calling for offended consumers not to shop at any Federated Department store until Macy's offers a public apology to the citizens of Boston, takes the mannequins "out of the closet" and back into the store window.


 * Actually this is a good example of a high-profile backlash against Gay pride so might be worthy of inclusion. Benjiboi 01:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe if it was about 1/5 th the size... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Living Memory LGBT History Timeline from Trans perspective
A possible resource. Transgender Aging Network has launched a project - Living Memory LGBT History Timeline to assist with aging LGBT folks "It is impossible to tell without asking someone precisely which public events shaped their lives, but knowing what was likely reported in newspapers and discussed at dinner parties during a person’s lifetime may help you understand how their worldview was shaped. To offer insight into the concerns, lifestyles, and belief sets of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people who are now 50 and older, the Transgender Aging Network has constructed the following timeline showing how old they would have been when there were critical events or changes in the lives of LGBT people." Starting with the 1920s the events list can be cross-referenced with current GLBT timelines and used as a possible stepping stone to aid Trans projects and awareness. The PDF version is here Html via Google is here  Benjiboi 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a great resourse! I have always wondered where the term "Gay" was first used!--Amadscientist 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Explaining Why Pride?
I think it's important to understand that the concept of Gay/LGBT Pride developed in the context of a culture and society which saw homosexuality and homosexual acts as something to be deeply ashamed of. Prior to Stonewall, we were all taught to see ourselves as sinful, criminals, a product of arrested development, unable to form meaningful relationships, in desparate need of psychiatric treatment, etc. These messages are, in fact still promoted by a significant segment of the population. It is of particular significance to be able to stand up and say we are not ashamed, we are proud to be who we are. The beginning section needs to include this idea. Wayne King 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * write something up! Either in the article or here for another editor to add. Benjiboi 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to writing something we should have sources to back it up although I imagine there are quite a few books that would handily cover the topic. Benjiboi 02:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's an important part of the experience of sexual minorities in the West, but this whole article is (like so many I've only had time to comment on, rather than substantially adding to) quite limited in its worldview. Being new to this article, I'll hold off a bit before tagging it as such and I would like to help add to it. Somewildthingsgo (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of Stonewall riots June 28, not 27
The historic date of the Stonewall riots is June 28, 1969, not June 27, 1969, as stated in this article. --194.255.112.21 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Resolved. Just one question, why three of the four pictures that can be seen in the article are pictures from Paris? Is this an article about gay society in France or something? I think those pictures should be changed, showing more geographical diversity, and not show pictures from only one country, specially when in that country gay marriage is not even legalized. --Galician (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an oddity and should be fixed. forestPIG 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Presently there is three historical photos plus one from Taiwan and one from Paris. Banje boi  19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed content
Today Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Seniors and members of the Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE) remember and recount the events from the 1970 New York City march (also referred to as 'The Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day March' or 'Militant March') that commemorated the Stonewall riots.

They were there at forefront of the movement, creating change and most importantly helping each other by joining hands and fighting discrimination. They are an extraordinary resource of our community. Watch activists Pauline Ferrara, Jerry Hoose, Chelsea Dreher and Laura Collins tell of the death threats, the police, the people they lost to AIDS/HIV and being in Central Park on the day back in 1970: www.gaycenter.org/out or download it download I've again removed the above content as being, if nothing else, poorly written for wikipedia purposes. There might be some good material in there but we don't hype up podcasts as such. Banje boi 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Proposing move of article content to LGBT pride with redirect from Gay pride to update to more inclusive term (and reflect trend of pride events adopting more inclusive names) --User0529 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposed. I've never ever heard anyone say LGBT pride or even seen it in print until people on wikipedia started changing gay pride to LGBT pride. In practice I hear and see it referred to as just pride. My hunch is that most international events will continue to shorten to just "pride" events rather than the alphabet option (LGBTQQI, etc) but for now we should leave the article at "gay pride" and make clear in the lede the changing nature. To the rest of the non-LGBT world I think "gay pride" is still the best known phrase and terminology and I would support keeping it here on that basis alone as the majority of readers would look for the article under that name. Banje boi  02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Gay pride is the most common name. I've never heard of LGBT pride before, either. I've heard of gay pride, lesbian pride, bisexual pride, transgender pride, even queer pride, but never anyone use the endless acronym and bunch it all together. Anything that might fall under the umbrella of this "LGBT pride" is shortened to "gay pride" or just "pride". Moreover, I question why so many articles have been moved from "Gay" to "LGBT" when their focus is mostly, if not entirely, on the male/male stuff. I understand being inclusive, but there's inclusive and there's beyond the scope of the article. Kolindigo (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. The term "Gay Pride" is well known and is established as a "household" word. I say mention the ever changing term of LGBT and why gay pride has been important to the over all community. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Gay Pride is the established common name. Narson (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally westernized perspective
Could we get some more globalization in here, if you're going to call it a world wide movement? You *do* have articles on the legal status of homosexuals in almost every country in the world. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps adding the parent article links in See also would help? -- Banj e  b oi   01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where does the article claim that Gay pride is a worldwide movement. (It...um...isn't). CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

an older version did it reads better now everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.49.155 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The date of the Stonewall Riots was June 28, 1969, why then is Gay Pride Day not celebrated on that date, why is Gay Pride Week not even in June in a lot of states and other countries. It seems a shame to me, and I am sure a cause of confusion to straight people, that the Lesbian and Gay community have decided to celebrate it't most important day and week in such a hap hazard manner. I am no politician, but it would make a much greater impact on the Hetrosexual community if the Gay and Lesbian Community would all celebrate their Pride on the day it theoretically began, if they would show their solidarity and unification by celebrateing Gay Pride Day and Gay Pride Week at the same time in every state in all the major cities and wherever it is celebrated. Why is is boroken up, some in May, some in October, some in July, come on get it together, if you want to make a statement, make it correctly make it either on June 28, or if you have to, pick a day or week in June and celebrate....Stop the dis-unification...come together and make a really huge statement instead of many dis-connected parades and what ever. Is there no one group that seems to be in charge, no group to coordinate these important functions. It seems to me that if you do not celebrate on June 28, or at least the week containing that date, you are not really celebrateing Gay Pride, you are just deciding to have a parade...rather meaningless...I will bet that without reading this article that nearly 80% of the Gay and Lesbian Community have no idea when the Stonewall Riots took place......It's fine to be young, middle aged, older and excited and wanting to express your pride in being gay, but lets get with it.....express it when it should be expressed...every day...and especiall on June 28.....Hope this little message reaches some of the right people and things will change some time soon....... A Concerned Gay man P.S....forgive any mispelled words, I get heated up about these things and don't watch my spelling as closely as I sould. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titustfb (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Gay Pride
I'm trying to correct mistakes regarding the origin of Gay Pride. The statement about GLF and GAA originally organizing the first march are not supported by any of the recognized references. The Brenda Howard reference appears to come from a blog post of questionable accuracy and, perhaps, from some conclusions based on shaky references. There is only one report of Howard attending meetings of the Christopher Street Liberation Day Umbrella Committee, and not as one of the primary members/organizers (Craig Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Ellen Broidy, Linda Rhodes, Michael Brown & Foster Gunnison) that formed the nexus of the coordinating group. Stnwll (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! Any questions, feel free to ask us.  C T J F 8 3  chat 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Challenging the conventional wisdom is always fraught w/issues. Many people made contributions during this period and I'm reluctant to tread on any toes, but some of what's written is incorrect and unsupported by the record.  Suggestions are welcome.Stnwll (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.69.92.148, 22 November 2010
Please remove the external link to www.gay-pride.org.uk as the website is now offline and will not be back online,

82.69.92.148 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbaker37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

History Section
I have a some issues with the content of the history section. The second paragraph seems to involve some original research or questionable synthesis, which ends up glamorizing ancient Rome at the expense of the Medieval era:

During Medieval times all forms of sexuality began to be repressed by the church as the message of heaven and hell gained popularity.[14] As technology fell behind, simple luxuries such as clean running water and proper sewage became a thing of the past.

These luxuries were not enjoyed by the large majority of people in Rome either. Only about 1/26 lived in a house and the public baths were standing water filled with dirty people in the days before chlorine.

This caused horrible conditions and disease.

As noted in my previous source, horrible conditions and disease were common in ancient Rome as well. This should not be serving as a contrast.

People began to believe that they were suffering from the wrath of God, blaming immorality.[15]

-"began"? The source that very sentence cites says, "The connection between morality and illness is not a medieval creation, but part of the heritage of Greco-Roman medicine."

Downthatroad (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much straight pride
The content merged from straight pride is given undue weight to the opposition section in general and the "straight pride" idea in particular. It's OK to have just a summary here, but all that verifiable content should be placed elsewhere - at the straight pride article if it survives AfD or at LGBT rights opposition otherwise. Diego (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article fails to meet Undue weight and is on the verge of becoming an anti-Pride lobbying article. I fully support someone getting the shears out and cutting this by 75%. --Fæ (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * STOP! As I was the only person working on this article, and not as a full-time job, I still haven't moved more info into the article. For example, the Pride parade article, aside from rehashing, is simply a LGBT pride event list. What's more, I'm currently working on a description section on pride events. So, until someone else wants to ADD more info about describing pride events, please do not remove any of the counter-pride incidents. Not only are they at the core of why pride exists, they also show the relevance of other, including extreme, views. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a weird rationale to make; the counter-pride incidents are a reaction to gay pride, not the reason why it exist; the Pride was created as a reaction to older affronts. It would make sense to emphasize those previous offenses that motivated it, not just the aftermath of reactions against it; together with scholarly analysis of gay pride meaning and yes, a summary of the content at LGBT pride parades; those are good topics for expansion. A summary section of the material already at straight pride and LGBT rights opposition (main articles for that section) makes sense, but not half the article. Nobody's suggesting to delete that content, only to move it to a place where it's not providing undue emphasis. (The "Incidents involving minors" are not even related to gay pride, but to school anti-harassment policies - they are unrelated other than by using the "straight pride" slogan). Diego (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CJ i have to agree with Diego. Gay Pride existed before straight pride and straight pride is a reaction to gay rights and not gay pride. We need a small amount of straight pride info here but the rest should go in LGBT opposition and Homophobia as that's what those sources show. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Playing the devil's advocate is great, though not helpful unless people read _all_ of what I just wrote. The rationale is quite evident: direct negative reactions as all anti-LGBT actions have a combined source: homophobia and heterosexism. The backlash part is just nuanced or tricky versions of discrimination with the same anti-LGBT mindset. Let's face it: LGBT pride is, both from within the LGBT collective and outside, questioned, criticized, stigmatized, debated, and yes, opposed. Repeatedly. Annually. It would be dishonest and partial not to include the most notable of these, which are here and, I hope, will continue to be only a few. Portraying GP more positively than its own positive stance is uprooting it from its contemporary context as no one unanimously vote for GP. As to the length, I agree, but only compared to the article as is, i.e. incomplete and too short. That's why, I repeat, I am working on a longer description section (and I hope someone beats me to it or, better, joins in). In fact, it's also why I've been participating over the last several years, to improve the some key LGBT articles: Homophobia, Heterosexism, LGBT pride, etc. These full-fledged Wikipedia articles on such discrimination in addition to violence against LGBT people are well-covered areas, hence no need to rehash them within the GP article, save for a short line or two. Besides, in view of the insanity going on with Straight pride, this is not a chicken-or-the-egg debate vis-à-vis discrimination. In fact, if anyone volunteers to summarize the "SP" incidents section, it'd be great provided that it's not over-American and not amputating. Back to the real issue: who wants to work (with me) on the pride part? I'm going to post the outline I have already in my sandbox. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that looks like an original thesis. In the 1980s there was no straight pride, yet there were still people mobbing me in Brixton, throwing stones and spitting on me. The point of the early pride events was to be visible and thereby reduce the fear of gay people that then existed in society; there was no need for Straight Pride to coordinate the majority opposition. In general, I suggest you consider articles such as the Labor Party (UK) that are not defined by talking endlessly about the Conservative Party. You may find it useful to take another long look at Criticism which the section you are attempting to expand appears to blatantly fail. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're confused. SP is directly related to GP. Arguing otherwise supports the SP as a separate article. Btw, the 80's were not free of criticism or counter protests against GP. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please actually read what I wrote. The people throwing stones and spitting at me in the 1980s were not supporters of gay pride. --Fæ (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012
Please change this paragraph from

"On four occasions, the President of the United States has officially declared a Pride Month. First, President Bill Clinton declared June "Gay & Lesbian Pride Month" on June 2, 2000. Then, in 2009, 2010 , and 2011, President Barack Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

to

"On five occasions, the President of the United States has officially declared a Pride Month. First, President Bill Clinton declared June "Gay & Lesbian Pride Month" on June 2, 2000. Then, in 2009, 2010 , 2011, , and 2012, President Barack Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

so as to reflect the recent proclamation by Obama for June 2012

Jayjaywalker3 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Mdann52 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to history of celebration/activism
If you insist on using LGBT please list the date(s)this PC terms were added and include the internal resistance to them. I personally find GLBT, LGBT, LGBTQ, etc. offensive. Thanks

TherealWade (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request to Christopher Street Liberation Day
Please remove this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lesbian_Group_of_Athens_at_the_Athens_Pride_2012.jpg and this malicious text directly targeting a specific person who is not a celebrity in the photo by full name, without her consent:

"English: Christina Antoinette Neofotistou (center-left, above the Greek word Soma on the banner), together with other activists of the Lesbian Group of Athens march for lesbian rights at the 2012 Athens Pride, a yearly public event promoting equal rights for the LGBT community. Ελληνικά: Η Χριστίνα Αντουανέττα Νεοφωτίστου (κέντρο-αριστερά, πάνω από την λέξη "σώμα" στο πανό), μαζί με άλλες ακτιβίστριες της οργάνωσης Λεσβιακή Ομάδα Αθήνας (ΛΟΑ) διαδηλώνουν για τα δικαιώματα των λεσβιών στο Φεστιβάλ Υπερηφάνειας του 2012 στην Αθήνα, μια ετήσια δημόσια διαδήλωση για τα δικαιώματα της ΛΟΑΤ κοινότητας."

It would also be a good thing if you could report the account doing this all over wikipedia, as I'm not that tech-savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.74.147 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 August 2014‎


 * This picture is just used on one place right now as shown at Commons:File:Lesbian Group of Athens at the Athens Pride 2012.jpg in the "file usage" section. It seems like a typical pride picture to me. What is malicious about this? It seems like a complement to Christina, whoever she is. What kind of report should be made against the uploader?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Her full name is used without her consent. She's not a public figure. I believe this falls under this "posting of personal information" paragraph on the harrassment article and she should be protected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information This user had uploaded this picture on two pages (the other one was on the Greek wikipedia site) and another picture on another page (also in Greek). We edited the two Greek pages that were not semi-protected to remove the images that use her name. In the second picture, she was specifically telling the photographer not to take her picture. Being at pride doesn't equal consent for your full name and pictures to appear on the internet. Please don't make this a debate.

__

You're kidding, right? I'm Christina Antoinette Neofotistou. I'm not a celebrity, I'm just as anonymous as the activists around me. Someone just wants my full name and face on the internet. The text used to read "Christina Antoinette Neofotistou (center-left, above the Greek word Soma on the banner)". This is clear targeting, and a clear violation of privacy. − 	In the other photo by the *same* account/person, it is clear that I'm holding up my hand in protest at the photo.

http://el.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9B%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B2%CE%AF%CE%B1&diff=prev&oldid=4785725#mediaviewer/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:Christina_Antoinette_Neofotistou_of_the_Lesbian_Group_of_Athens_and_QueerTrans_at_Athens_Pride_2014.JPG

This happened this past Athens Pride, and the photographer was really really sleazy and refused to delete the photo. We believe this is retribution, because he found out who I am and posted all the info they know about me. Outing is never a good thing, and being present at a gay pride, doesn't give anyone the (legal or moral) right to out you. Minors are dependent on me, so it doesn't matter HOW proud I am, they are not to be punished. Is this clear? Christina

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.74.147 (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done - It appears that changes has already been made by some other Wikipedia editor. I did not find any search results on the article page for "Christina Antoinette Neofotistou" or parts of it. Well, the image appears to me a copyright violation by the uploader and is now nominated for deletion. Let me know, if I missed something (type in your reply and I'll be notified). Regards,  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was not kidding. I live in the United States and I have no idea how things are in Greece, but I would expect here that if someone where photographed at pride holding a banner in public streets then they might expect to be photographed and possibly named in a picture. It is my misunderstanding that some people see this as harassment. It looks like the picture is nominated for deletion and I will indicate that the picture is asserted to be harassment. There is no need to explain the harassment, but no, I do not see anyone in the picture protesting it being taken. It just looks like people walking down the street holding a banner to me. Wikipedia has thousands of similar pictures, many which say people's names. We do not assume that pictures taken in public with names are harassment because it is unusual if they are. Thanks for speaking up. I did not understand.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

russia hasnt decriminalised anything ?
its criminalised even talking about LGBT issues at all, it is one of the worst countries for basic human rights of said minority. unless pride is like the transgender day of remeberance wher we remeber our dead,it has nothing to do with celibrating the fact that russia never did what the article is saying. they stripped transgender people of having a liscence!?? how do we rewrite definitions worded to hurt us that pertain to us? ther should be no mention of joy over russia,its misleading.

russia takes away liscences http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30735673 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.252.178 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Add yellow/blue equal sign to first pargraph
At the end of the first paragraph, it mentions common symbols that represent gay pride. Can someone add the yellow equal sign on the blue background to that list? That one is very popular.

And since they are symbols, could someone add some pictures? I think that would be cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.12.233.235 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That symbol is not directly associated with Gay Pride -- it is the official logo of the Human Rights Campaign, a lobbying organization. Not appropriate for this article. HalJor (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015
In "Opposition", "In group", both "'Kreuzberger CSD'" and "'Transgenialer' ('Transgenial'/Trans Ingenious') CSD" can be linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzberg_Pride.

Claudiodeugenio (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen Sofia of Spain?
How are the purported Queen Sofia of Spain comment relevant to this article? Those comments where false or at least retracted. How about some comment about Madrid's Pride being the largest and more fun of Europe? the level of respect needed from me is a one hundred making sure ever person feel included at earth. Love you all- Taylor Swift

EVENTS in Spain

Spain
MADO (July) MADRID MADO Madrid Pride has been for years the largest urban event celebrated in Europe because it brings over two million people together in the main streets and squares of the city. The performances take place in Plaza de Chueca, a symbol of freedom and LGTB rights that offers concerts and other activities for all kind of audiences.

Mado is now more than just Madrid's gay party, it's a great economic, social and vindicative affair that every year transcends our borders and turns Madrid into the city of diversity.

Youtube: MADRID LGTB Pride is a multiethnic and multicultural celebration open to everybody (children, teens, the elderly, neighbors and visitors from all over the world), transforming Madrid into an open Gateway to Diversity. This is the spirit in which “Orgullo, ejemplo de convivencia” (“Pride, example of coexistence”) was created, an initiative that looks to spread awareness and involvement amongst groups, businesses, organisms and organizers about the importance of MADO and it´s aim to expand respect and peaceful coexistence.

In the past few years Madrid Pride celebrations have congregated more than two million participants. The traditional multicolor Statewide Parade running through the capital serves as the perfect climax to a week full of festivities. Madrid's Gay Pride has become, by its own right, the most popular celebration in Spain. Madrid Pride has gone from being a small protest in the 80´s to the enormous event it is today, a moment in which we all come together to celebrate equality and diversity in a festive and fun way, without ever forgetting the LGTB community´s pursue for rights.

MADRID WORLD GAY PRIDE 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.112.115 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Circuit Festival (August) BARCELONA - IBIZA CIRCUIT Circuit Festival began to take shape six years ago (2009) in response to the needs of a concerned international gay scene that began to demand new entertainment options apart from the traditional ones that had been associated with the LGBT audience.

And, until then, in Europe there had been an obvious gap in terms of a leisure and holiday quality offer that was able to satisfy the expectations of an audience that, increasingly, was as diverse as demanding.

With the conviction that we had the necessary capacity and structure to offer to the gay community a comprehensive leisure option as respectful to their needs and preferences as capable to satisfy their expectations, Circuit Festival Barcelona was born, which is the biggest cultural and leisure international festival for gays and lesbians in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eazu (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to "LGBT pride"

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by a page mover) Steel1943  (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Gay pride → LGBT pride – I think the name of this article should be "LGBT pride" instead of "gay pride". The word gay is an ambiguous and often pejorative term and it does not cover anything beside male and female homosexuals. Are bisexuals and trans people gay? According to this name, they are.

We already have LGBT portal, LGBT-related lists, LGBT culture, LGBT people, LGBT history and even LGBT stubs. Do I see somewhere Gay portal, Gay-related lists, Gay culture, Gay people, Gay history and Gay stubs?

I hereby propose that the article should be renamed to "LGBT pride" in order to standardize Wikipedia's coverage on LGBT topics. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards oppose, but have a query. Do you have a body of sources showing that "LGBT pride" has eclipsed "gay pride" as the common term? Your move rationale is overall not very good or convincing, and the article takes a primarily historic view during which "gay pride" was the term used, but I could see myself potentially supporting a move if you could show that usage to describe the current phenomenon has really changed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:Common name and WP:Precise are the policies to look at here. The word gay is still used to refer to the entire LGBT community; for example, when the terms gay community or gay pride flag are used; I had an extensive discussion about this at the LGBT community talk page, where I provided sources. That stated, using gay to refer to the entire LGBT community is seen as inaccurate by many since it's not precise and is steadily being phased out. Our articles, such as the one about the gay community and the one about the gay pride flag, don't use gay for the title...except for the lead (per WP:Alternative name).


 * On a side note: I added a WP:Requested move tag to the proposal above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on WP:COMMONAME grounds. Judging from the result of Google searches, the gay pride term is used over 30 times as often as LGBT pride, and my on-the-ground observations (admittedly far from the center of activity on this) would be that it continues to be the more used term in mainstream coverage and general conversation. I can concur with the desire for that to be the general change of terminology, but Wikipedia should be the tail in that effort, not the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Roscelese ("the article takes a primarily historic view during which 'gay pride' was the term used") and User:NatGertler. —  AjaxSmack   16:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "gay" can refer to all of the LGBT community, and the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. SST  flyer  16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Nat Gertler. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I realise this is a well-meaning proposal. But, (as a young gay person myself) I disagree completely that gay is a "often pejorative term". I see absolutely no evidence for that (and I would love to see some presented). If I'm talking to someone about my sexuality I don't say I'm lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender - I say I'm gay. That's not a pejorative or an insult. If my mum says I'm gay she's not insulting me. She's stating a fact. Personally I think the LGBT categories should be sub-categorised into lesbian/gay/bisexual/trans subcategories as sexuality and gender identity are separate issues. Gay pride is also the WP:COMMONNAME. AusLondonder (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose; clear COMMONNAME violation in the name of being PC. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 16:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the rationale provided for the move. Wikipedia titles follow the common name first, and they are only concerned about internal consistency within articles second. LGBT may be an all-inclusive term for the community, but the parade and movement that are the subject of this article are not known by that term. Diego (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I will elaborate a bit more on my proposal. I also feel that as this is not pearly a historical article, but rather one that is also about the present, and seeing as the community referred to in this article has broadened to include folks that do not identify as gay (bi and some of the trans folk etc.), I feel having the word gay in the title dose not accurately reflect its current scope. I know many people still use the term gay to refer to this community but it is on its way out as a term used for the whole of this community. If putting LGBT in the title is the stumbling block for some may I suggest an alternative new name, say something like "pride (LGBT community)". --Devin Murphy (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.