Talk:Save Our Children

To do for possible FA
Miami Herald on microfilm:
 * December 6, 1976
 * Editorial: December 8, 1976
 * Editorial: December 18, 1976
 * January 18, 1977
 * April 14, 1977
 * June 5 - 7, 1977
 * August 24, 1969
 * September 1, 1970
 * October 14, 1978 - pie
 * May 1980 - Bryant - Green divorce

Newsweek on microfilm
 * George Will "How Far Out of the Closet?" Newsweek June ? 1977

The Advocate on microfilm
 * Army Admits Its Help To Anita Was Illegal. Advocate, 8/7/80 Issue 298, p8, 0p; (AN 10188933)
 * WELCOME TO WICHITA. By: Shilts, Randy. Advocate, 4/19/78 Issue 239, p38, 0p; (AN 10327054)
 * THE POLYESTER PLOT. By: Shilts, Randy M.. Advocate, 3/8/78 Issue 236, p7, 3p; (AN 10298088)

Advertising Age on microfilm
 * June 6, 1977


 * Ms. magazine September 1977: campaign was about fear of sexuality: library storage


 * The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality

Spelling
Two extremely minor spelling questions: I'll be reviewing more tonight. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pieing"? Or "pie-ing"? Neither looks right, of course :)
 * Èmigrès? Or keep it without the accents?


 * My Firefox spellchecker did not underline pieing. I'm gonna go with that.
 * I can add the accents. I should probably do that to the Spanish names, too. --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Save Our Image-Use Policy
There are seven images used in this article. None whatsoever are free. Over and above the fact that that would be a dealbreaker at FAC, what's the justification for most of them? I can see, perhaps, the pied face, and maybe one of the brochures, but not for all the magazine covers. What's the rationale? The article would not be significantly weakened if most of them were removed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know yet if this will go to FAC, but I understand that's beside your point. There are now three fair-use images in the article. Is there a threshold of images to words? Or images to the article? I was conscientious in both magazine covers in the justifications on the image pages. Is it a case of being more thorough in the justifications, in the article text, or simply not including them at all? --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask some people, the less you include the better. The main justification for including them in this article would be a discussion of the image itself in the accompanying text, as you seem to have done with the pie image (and most of what's in that cutline really ought to be in the text ... IMO, there is no reason an image cutline should take up as much space as the image itself). Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the few spirited discussions involving images I've claimed Fair Use for (Birmingham campaign, Stonewall riots), complete and perhaps over-thorough justification of the image in the article and its caption has been the factor which allowed for its full undisputed use. Media representation is a major part of this article because these issues had never been discussed before on such a widespread scale. The specialized media outlets in Christian broadcasting and gay magazines were also an important factor in fundraising for the campaigns and outcome afterwards. I sincerely hate tussling with images; the policy is individually interpreted and quite unclear. I find it very frustrating, so if I don't think the article needs it I don't put it in. I think these images are warranted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. As I have suggested elsewhere, I really don't like this policy too much, for the reasons you claim and many, many others, and I'm not going to press it here. But some other people might make an issue of it. Just a heads-up more than anything else. Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article review
Thoughts, as they come to me, to be ignored if desired :)


 * 1) The lede is a bit long, though I see it covers what is needed.  Perhaps the side-note about Prop 6 could be removed?
 * 2) "Background", 1st para: the word "gay" is over-used here. Also, and this is less certain, the sentence with Ruth Shack in it might need to be split?  Or reworded? It reads a bit funny to me.
 * 3) cn for "hundreds of parishoners"?
 * 4) What is "Club Baths"?
 * 5) The "40 cities" sentence seems a bit out of place - the section is about homosexuality in Miami.
 * 6) * Tweaked it.
 * 7) "concerning one if its parishioners" doesn't scan right to me.
 * 8) * Tweaked it.
 * 9) After Lyndon Johnson, a sentence starts "More recently" - that's a jarring time-indicator, since it usually comes from a present-tense stance.  As in, "She used to drink Coke, but more recently had started trying Pepsi."  I see what is being said, but would re-word that a bit.
 * 10) * Tweaked it.
 * 11) In "Note 1", Green's name is presented as if we know who that is. His name was mentioned once, a paragraph and a half back in the main text, which is too far removed for that, IMO.
 * 12) * Tweaked it.
 * 13) I would uncomment the ref for the 5-3 vote.
 * 14) * That's a reminder that I need to ref that statement from the Miami Herald, which I have not yet had the time to view.
 * 15) The Robert Brake side-note make the sentence a run-on IMO.
 * 16) The first two sentences of the third paragraph in the "Strategy" section seem out of place.  They are referring to her national status, or relating to other cities, when the next sentences (and the rest of the section) are local in scope.
 * 17) The third paragraph of the "Outside help" section is a bit disjointed.  The first sentence doesn't seem to go with the following two.

That's it for now - off to bed to dream of sucking oranges. More later. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I'll work on these. Did you find any concerns with POV or neutrality? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not found any POV issues. I, of course, am trying to be neutral, but find it a bit difficult.  I believe the article is good, but would love to have someone else take on the POV/neutrality issue.  I haven't seen anything blatant, though.


 * One thing I noted everywhere is that almost throughout the article you have punctuation in a way I wouldn't use it - after the quotation mark. In other words, the article often has:
 * something".
 * where I would use:
 * something."
 * I don't know if MOS says something about that, but it caught my eye several times. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing where I left off:
 * 1) In the "Media" section: "As a result, during the 1970s fundamentalist Christians began to develop radio and television broadcasting in the 700 Club run by Pat Robertson, ..." -- "began to develop .. broadcasting in the 700 Club"... There's a subject-verb issue?  Or something that doesn't make sense there.
 * 2) "It was a bi-weekly magazine..." I'm assuming you mean The Advocate here, but perhaps that should be repeated?  The "It" is a tad loose.
 * 3) "Major mainstream news outlets" - maybe just "Mainstream" OR "Major"?
 * 4) In the "Communities" section: "Foster and Geto set the public tone side of the campaign"
 * 5) "nor run commercials righting the misconception that child molesters were primarily heterosexual" - I think that's opposite what you mean to say
 * 6) The sentence that starts "Since the advent of second wave feminism..." needs a citation, IMO.
 * 7) In the "Response" section, I could be wrong, but shouldn't "...civil rights bill in U.S. Congress..." be "in the U.S. Congress..."?
 * 8) At the end, "It was renamed soon to..." - change to "It was soon renamed to..."?
 * 9) In the "Violence" section, "''Two weeks after the Dade County vote a gardener" - add a comma after vote?
 * 10) "Gay activists in New Orleans tried to discourage her performance with the New Orleans Pops" - who is her?
 * 11) In the "Economic retaliation" section, the section of the sentence "Norfolk, Virginia—where demonstrators interrupted her presentation so forcefully she began crying, Chicago, and dozens of other cities" - the commas don't seem clear to me.  Is there another specific city that could go after "Chicago"?
 * 12) In the "Other locations" section, "future U.S. senator Paula Hawkins" - should the S be capitalized?
 * 13) In the "Seattle" section, the phrase "and in his role as police officer as well as in religion" - in his role in religion?
 * 14) "campaign against Initiative Thirteen was different" - different than what?
 * 15) "Women were highly visible in the campaign, raising about the same amount as men" - same amount of money?
 * 16) In the "Moral Majority" section, "not previously considered in 1974" - maybe move the "in 1974" back to be right after "Equal Rights Amendment"
 * 17) In the "Gay activism" section, the sentence that begins "When gay men tried in several desperate measures..." is a bit run-on.
 * 18) "to protest the FDA's who were delaying" - are there more than one FDA?
 * 19) Now that I look at it, that third paragraph runs a bit far afield from the subject at hand.  Maybe the closing paragraph could mention ACT/UP, but somehow bring it back to Anita?

Dubious Point about No Religious Involvement in Politics Since 1925
Hi. The point that is made in the opening section about no religious involvement since 1925 until Jerry Falwell's resurrection is simply not true. The Catholic Church in the late 1920's, early 30's pushed the adoption of what became the Motion Picture Production Code or Hays Code that censored film through the office of the PCA and via other politically-active means censored book publication and nudity in the U.S... Religious involvement has an ebb and flow in its influence over US history, but has always been a part of politics in America... With Falwell, the Christian infrastructure simply found a new avenue to mobilize their complaints... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is cited in the Moral Majority section from The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance, which conveniently, I do not have with me. I can access it on Monday, however. I have another source I used for this article titled Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America's Debate on Homosexuality that discusses Christian involvement in politics in the 20th century. The author, Fred Fejes, between pages 86 and 87 references the Scopes Trial and a general attitude about political involvement among Christian churches was reflected in the Bible phrase, "My kingdom is not of this world". Some regional blocs of religious involvement were evident with Catholics in the Northeast and Protestant churches in the South. Not until the vast social changes in the 1960s did religious organizations become directly involved on a nation-wide scale, according to the author. Fejes does not mention the Hays Code. I will refer to the cited source when I can get it on Monday to get a clearer view of what the author is referring to. The Hays Code could arguably political, but not overtly, such as what occurred from the Moral Majority in the 1980s. --Moni3 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly I did not go to the library when I said. However, I did today and I have the source in front of me that reiterates what Fejes does. Attempts to become involved in politics on a nationwide scale were sporadic. The source specifically mentions Billy James Hargis and Carl McIntyre. But not until the Moral Majority says the source, "were there any long term successful attempts by purely fundamentalist groups to influence politics and to become a permanent power in society to be reckoned with". Ideally, I'd like the dubious tag to be removed, because the claims are supported by two reliable sources. However, if you think it could be reworded to make it clearer, I'm open to suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia category
There seems to be an attempt to prevent this category from being added to the article. The homophobia category is for articles that relate to the topic of homophobia. It is not meant as a pejorative category. One of the editors trying to remove the category has used reasons such as "just because they (Save Our Children) oppose the gay agenda does not mean they are afraid of it". First of all, the dictionary definition of homophobia means "an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" (World English Dictionary) and "an irrational fear of, or aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Considering that the Save Our Children campaign's very purpose was to deny civil rights to homosexuals, and also for the perceived "threat" of homosexuals "recruiting" their children, they are pretty much a textbook example of homophobia. Right-wingers may not like this, but it doesn't stop it from being true. Furthermore, while the category currently stipulates that "it is not meant for persons, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic", Save Our Children self-identify as a group who wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals. It was their sole purpose, and therefore there is nothing "alleged" about it. The article therefore meets the criteria to be included in the category. Particled (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion should take place at Category_talk:Homophobia. It's not about this article's contents, but the propriety of the category to this and similar topics. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moni3 beat me to it: the use/misuse of the category has been discussed at length, so please work to change consensus there if you wish. AV3000 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that placing the article in this category is actually in accordance with the category's appropriate usage and purpose. Therefore, the discussion should take place right here. The consensus to avoid putting people and groups in the category who are "allegedly" homophobic was to avoid public figures/groups being put in when there was no solid evidence that they were homophobic (i.e. if somebody made a homophobic joke, would it really mean that they were homophobic, etc). In that respect, I can understand why inclusions to the category have to be carefully thought through. But, as already stated, the Save Our Children campaign actually self-identified as a group that aimed to deny cicil rights to homosexuals. Their "fear" of "homosexual recruitment" (a ridiculous term I know) was the premise behind the campaign. There is absolutely no question that this article fits the homophobia category, and it would seem to me that people who want to keep it out of the category are perhaps biased towards the article's subject. 82.26.42.174 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the discussion should take place at the category, not the article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion should be here. There has already been a discussion at the category, and consensus decided the boundaries that the category could be used for (pertaining to homophobia but not people or groups that are "allegedly" homophobic). It seems pretty clear to me that individual inclusions or exclusions to the category should be discussed on the individual article pages. The discussion at the category pages should be about the category itself, not individual article pages. Particled (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, sure. Let's all wait for a discussion on a category at the article talk page. I'm going to hold my breath. Whatever you do, don't bring this up at the category talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

full text of the ordinance
Is it possible to provide the full text of the ordinance "that banned discrimination in areas of housing, employment, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation"? Was it really about discrimination? --A1 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)