Talk:LGBT pride/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride#LGBT_Pride_Month just below "Google marked any LGBT-related search results in June 2012 with a rainbow colored pattern underneath search results.[41]" I want to add:

In june 2017 the search of "pride month" add to the page an 8 stripes rainbow flag from top to bottom. Marin.com (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide reliable sources. -- Alexf(talk) 10:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have found sources for years 2013 to 2017 so I will open a new edit request, thank you.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride#LGBT_Pride_Month instead of

"Google marked any LGBT-related search results in June 2012 with a rainbow colored pattern underneath search results.[41]"

I want to write:

From 2011 Google marked some LGBT-related search results with one different rainbow colored pattern each month of june. Petit Mar (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It looks as if none of the sources you provide mentions 2011. Please find a reliable source that does or else reword your proposed change. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   02:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petit Mar (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a mistype. I rewrite the proposed change: Petit Mar (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017
From 2012 Google marks some LGBT-related search results with one different rainbow colored pattern during each month of june. Petit Mar (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2017 (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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 20:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above was posted as a separate request, but it really was a follow-up to the request in the preceding section. I denied that one, then User:Petit Mar reposted it with modifications based on my stated objections. So the "X to Y" format was there in the first place. I have made the requested change, with significant copyedits to the proposed text. I hope this works for everyone. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   21:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving?
Any objections to setting up auto-archiving for this page? Rivertorch FIREWATER  18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Biased
"backing down to unconstitutional raids, they fought back" We're not in some sappy melodrama here and that may be the most unencyclopediac thing I've ever heard. This hold page needs a complete rewrite from a NPOV. The article is the kind of thing I would expect to see from Conservapedias liberal brother. This page is handled in a horrendously biased way. Please comment for or against a complete rewrite --Lookingthrough (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it too. Litteraly the very eighth word "positive" is a statement made by the author (which i agree on but this is not the question) is a proof that this page isn't from a NPOV. So i agree on the fact that this page need a complete rewrite. -- Draal (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Without carefully documenting precisely why each paragraph is unsalvageable, it isn't very helpful to say that an article needs a "complete rewrite". You have provided no "proof" whatseover, just made a rather obscure assertion. While you're right that your agreement with the eighth word isn't the question, I do find it curious that the first edit you've ever made outside of your own user space is to dispute the neutrality of this article. In any event, responding to an eight-year-old comment isn't the best way to begin a discussion with the aim of finding consensus. Please start a new thread if you're serious about pursuing this. Rivertorch FIREWATER  18:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well you're right that : Without carefully documenting precisely why each paragraph is unsalvageable, it isn't very helpful to say that an article needs a "complete rewrite" however i didn't mean to get involved in the article first of all because i don't know anything about LGBT pride etc ... So basically when i ran into this article i read the first paragraph and went into the talk section. Now couldn't care less if the comment above mine was troll or made by a nine years-old I just agreed on the point that the article was biaised solely on reading the first lines (because again i didn't want to involve in this kind of wikipedia page). If you get an back english test from your student and the very first word is anglich i wouldn't even bother reading it. And you can't deny the fact that the word 'positive' is way to express the writer's opinion. If it was the words of someone else quoted it would have been different. I read the rest of the article however and the rest seemed a good job for me.
 * While you're right that your agreement with the eighth word isn't the question, I do find it curious that the first edit you've ever made outside of your own user space is to dispute the neutrality of this article The statement was made especially to prevent this kind of implied ad-hominem attacks. . Draal (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Bias
Shouldn't there be a notification that this article is biased, now that wiki is advertising that it loves pride, even on pages that have nothing to do with LGBT issues.

There is no way to have this article be unbiased now, the website running it is opening telling people they love pride.

--2605:A000:1E02:C05D:51CC:AA81:7F23:26DE (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPO. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo replacement and request for COI info
Mathglot has asked I respond to possible conflict of interest issues for adding photos to articles relating to Gillette, Wyoming. I don't work for the city, no one pays me to edit, and I gain nothing from it other than knowledge and experience. Also, I have no connection to the person in the photo or the groups that hosted the event. The only relationship to the content I contribute to Wikipedia wether its written text, data, or photos is I created it. If that addresses all the COI concerns please restore the edit. Mr. Satterly (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What you say seems okay to me, but I'm also not very well-versed in such things. This article, and Drag queen, have both been subject to various types of vandalism, POV editing, self-promotion, and other kinds of prohibited changes to content, and they're both on my watchlist, so when I see a photo change, I check it out. Nothing wrong with changing a photo, by itself. I guess what bothered me, was that you didn't just add a photo, but replaced a previous one (diff, before, after) with a new one that had a Gillette motif. And then, the same thing at Drag queen, in short order. A look at your contributions shows that you have a lot of other contributions connected with Gillette, Wyoming, which seemed to be a pattern, and I just wanted to make sure you're not a connected contributor in some way.  Even if you were, you could still contribute, you'd just have to disclose the fact. Please don't take offense about this inquiry; to some extent, you're reaping the results of bad-faith edits by other actors that have absolutely nothing to do with you. So, I apologize in advance, if there's any hurt feelings.
 * Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else cares to comment; and if not, I'll revert my removals. Thanks for your patience, Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized after writing the above, that you started a discussion at The Teahouse about this. To an extent, it's best to centralize discussions in one place as much as possible, but it's perfectly fine to ask questions there, which is what you are doing. Just wanted to provide a link to the discussion for full transparency, for any other editors who come here to comment, so they can see the full picture. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized after writing the above, that you started a discussion at The Teahouse about this. To an extent, it's best to centralize discussions in one place as much as possible, but it's perfectly fine to ask questions there, which is what you are doing. Just wanted to provide a link to the discussion for full transparency, for any other editors who come here to comment, so they can see the full picture. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Listed: at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed: at Wikipedia talk:LGBT. Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing and due weight
Regarding the photos placement in the article, there may be a sourcing or due weight issue as well. This isn't really directed related to a COI discussion, so should perhaps be its own section, but since its about the same photos, I decided do it as a subsection, to keep the issues separate but connected.

I did a web search for "Gay pride" in "Gillette Wyoming", to see what kind of information is out there about it. The search excluded "Wikipedia" itself (but not mirrors) and got 70 results. However, a lot of them seem to be false positives, and either don't have both phrases at all (e.g., #2, #3, #5), or have them, but in different contexts (#1, #4). Of the top ten results, I don't see even one that is about gay pride in Gillette, or even that it exists. I don't doubt that it does and that you were there, but that isn't the problem. The difficulty of finding reliable sources to document it may affect whether the article can mention it for reasons of verifiability, or how much attention the article can devote to it, per WP:DUE, if something can be found but it's sparse. If you are able to find published articles in local papers or elsewhere, please post them below.

This may help:

You could also try newspapers.com. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For sources please see, from Gillette News-Record a long standing newspaper whose articles are sometimes syndicated through Associated Press and from County 17 a local news site. Which says that the event is held annually and a drag was held this year. It may be paywalled.
 * As for due weight since the HBT one in Israel does not illustrate the text and is I believe lower quality visually I replaced it with an image of a pride event with someone holding a large fan with the text "pride" in rainbow colors which illustrates the section that discusses pride events. The caption is copied from the image title. I don't know if that resolves that issue though. Mr. Satterly (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest getting rid of both the original image and its proposed replacement. There are already two better images in that subsection, plus a box quote. Per MOS:SANDWICH, the article shouldn't have left and right-aligned photos opposite each other. With a narrow browser window, the text between them is reduced to an awkward column of one or two words. With a wide browser window, the quote gets pushed down into "Initiatives and criticism by governments and political leaders", which is misleading.--Trystan (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say the Boston Pride image be removed as well then to make space. It has a low resolution of 640x480, has poor framing where it clips the building top and people, the sky is completely blown out or white, and unlike the NASA photo or the proposed one the Boston Pride photo doesn't show anything visually as pride event related except a very tiny sign in the background partially covered that says pride. The Boston Pride photo has a less free license than the proposed one which is another criteria in WP:MOSIMAGES. Mr. Satterly (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are too many images I suggest dropping the proposed image, removing the Boston Pride and HBT Israel and using the NASA image only. It's visually the best of the batch, shows an event best related to the text, and would give more breathing room in the text. Mr. Satterly (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note/clarify... I presume you're talking about the Boise image, because there is no Boston image on the page. HalJor (talk)



There is a bigger issue here than Sourcing and due weight in my opinion. You mention various objections to the Carmel photo (right) such as resolution framing and coloring, and in particular, that it "doesn't show anything visually as pride event related except a very tiny sign in the background partially covered that says pride" as well as complaining about the washed-out sky.

In contrast, the Gillette photo that you wish to replace it with (left), doesn't look like any kind of parade, celebration, or event to me. Looking more carefully, and enlarging it to maximum size (1292x2268), it depicts a single person standing indoors and striking a pose, alone in the image, in front of a blank wall with a picture hanging, and holding a fan marked "Pride". This not an improvement over the other photo, and in my opinion it doesn't illustrate the celebratory spirit of Gay Pride. For all we can tell from the picture, he's all alone in the room. It "doesn't show anything visually as [a] pride event", or any kind of event. I don't see how you would think this image is a better representation of Gay Pride than an image of a group of perhaps a hundred people celebrating together in a park, with a giant pride flag on the ground, and other pride colors displayed all over the image.

Both the Carmel image, in a natural setting, and the Boise image, in an urban setting, seem more celebratory and representative of the spirit of Pride to me, than the lonely figure at the left. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To answer the question of bias in "Are you sure your judgment has not been affected by authorship of the Gillette photo?" by Mathglot I looked at the section and saw 3 images - Carmel, Boise, and NASA. Two of them - Carmel and Boise were inferior for technical and license reasons. Since all 3 show groups of people I believed a shot of a single person would provide a contrasting view of a pride event especially since Carmel and Boise are very similar. I never considered the NASA photo because it's superior to all 4 in quality and notability. Those are some of the criteria I used to place the image. I hope that addresses the concerns. Mr. Satterly (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really; but it's time to let others weigh in. (P.S. Please read WP:THREAD with respect to replying on Talk pages, and proper use of indentation. Thanks.)  Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. I am new at talk pages. I will respect the request to give the floor to other editors. If there are any other concerns or questions for me please ask and I try to answer them. Mr. Satterly (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019
being gay is a very great thing because being gay is ok in todays society Southy100 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 21:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition
Are there some sources supporting current definition? Because the only thing I found is encyclopedia Britannica and that defines "gay pride" as "annual celebration, usually in June in the United States and sometimes at other times in other countries". Matinee71 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right to question that, and if it's not covered in the body of the article, it should be. I recently created new section "Terminology and origins" for different reasons, but it could be expanded to include a response to your question. Feel free to expand it on your own, or I may have a look, if I get a chance. Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
Strangerthings666 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC) people say that you will be sent to hell by god if your Gay my response is that i don't care if i'm sent to hell only if i'm with the person i love and 2 if god hates us so much why did he make us like we are.
 * 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
change LGBT to LGBTQ 69.137.33.92 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nah, per WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:COMMONNAME. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020
Me and my friend Stephen Crow (who is an active Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, and used to be acquainted with Gilbert Baker) have designed and sewn a flag on the 4th of July of 2020, as a protest to the current fascist political climate that dominates the United States and most of the world. We flew this flag in San Francisco, in the Excelsior district, as a demonstration of inclusivity and intersectional pride. I thought this file could be added to the "Spread" section of this article.

Jezzlucena (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, as far as I can tell the flag has not received significant coverage by secondary sources yet, we try to balance our coverage by how much weight secondary sources give to things. It's too soon to add this flag to this article now, but if it achieves widespread use sometime in the future then we'll add it. See also our guide for editors with a conflict of interest. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Thjarkur. Do you have any insight on how a flag can get repercussion? well, the message of inclusion is more important than the design, and I don’t intend to profit from this design at all, but I’ve been wondering how the message could get more widespread notoriety Jezzlucena (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Barbara Gittings 1965.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021
Change from “Gay pride” to just “Pride”. This is not a celebration of homosexuals. Change from LGBT to LGBTQI+. Pride is about inclusivity and limiting to just the four main stereotypical sexualities is not the ethos of pride. 77.98.38.57 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. (Also, the Pride article already exists with that name.)  Bsoyka  ( talk  &middot;  contribs ) 18:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)