Talk:Straight pride/Archive 2

Relevancy
See, Dominus Vobisdu, you just deleted (and I good-faith reverted) the following properly-referenced text with the comment: Completely irrelevant to this article " ... The Utah Daily Chronicle story "Straight Pride’ Fliers Posted Anonymously" covered anonymous posting of "Straight Pride" posters following a "university pride" week. Accounts of why the posters were quickly removed varied from the posters lacking the required date stamp to the statement by the flyer's makers: "Most of [the fliers] did not survive their first day of proclamation, whether this is due to humorless officials, gay supremacists or gusts of air...." Can you please explain to me how a reliably-sourced quote explicitly referencing the topic of the article is irrelevant? TreacherousWays (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there's absolutely no evidence that the actions of anonymous persons in question had anything to do with "straight pride" at all. We already have, or had, an incident in the article where college students posting similar fliers admitted it was all a joke, and that they most definitely did not act out of homophobia or "straight pride". Without evidence pertaining to the motives of the posters, there is no way we can determine whether this incident had anything to do with "staight pride" in any real sense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your position is that the text is irrelevent because you speculate that the perpetrators were actually playing a practical joke of some sort? That is unreasonable, and fails to adhere to the policies on verifiablity, reliable sources, and synthesis. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I said nothing of the sort. My position is that the text is irrelevant because YOU are speculating as to the motives of the unknown perpetrators. The article says nothing about their motives. Just because they used the slogan does not mean that their action had anything to do with "straight pride". To conclude so would be WP:SYNTH. I brought up the joke incident to illustrate that their are indeed plausible alternatives explanations of their actions. I did not claim that this was a joke, only that the actual motives were unknown. The only connection that this incident has to the article is that the words "straight pride" appeared on the flier. Whether the reaon they appeared had anything to do with "straight pride" in any real sense is anyone's guess, and any conclusion, yours or mine, would be pure speculation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is directly and explicitly about "straight pride", see the cited article.  Are you saying that you have different definition that excludes this?   So you are saying that the topic that "doesn't exist" has a specific definition which excludes this? ! ? !  That seems self-conflicing. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have a definition of "Straight Pride", documented in practically every one of the reliable sources provided by merge opponents, even this one about the joke. And neatly summarized above by merge-opposer Lionelt. Namely, that "Straight Pride" is synonymous with LGBT rights opposition/Homophobia. The perpetrators themselves said "We are not trying to make any kind of political or otherwise statement." For you to claim that this has anything to do with "straight pride" in any meaningful sense is an abuse of the source. By the way, please take the time to read my previous arguments. I never said that "Straight Pride" does not exist. I said that it does not exist as a philosophy/movement/phenomenon/concept except as an expression of LGBT rights opposition, and as such does not merit an independent article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon review of the reference, I withdraw opposition to the removal of the text. Dominus Vobisdu is correct in stating that the text does not support the position that a "Straight Pride" movement exists. The perpetrators explicitly stated that they were playing a joke. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Yes. I've done it, nominated it for deletion. I've been too-ing and fro-ing over this for a long time, and have done a lot of research on the topic. The simple fact is, I don't believe that there is a straight pride, and I don't believe it's notable as a slogan. As such, deletion is the most appropriate action. The nomination, Articles for deletion/Straight pride (3rd nomination), is in. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a surprise but it's not completely unexpected as these last 2 weeks have been treated as a joke. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My only regret is that I didn't do it myself three weeks ago. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I approve of your action, although I believe that the nomination will fail for the reasons I have outlined above. Hopefully, the nomination will attract new editors and fresh eyes: fresh air and sunlight are the best disinfectants. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

LGBT youth suicide statement
I removed the lead paragraph reference to suicides among LGBT youth. The statement implied that the suicides were, at least in part, a response to "Straight Pride" days or expressions. The reference mentions LGBT suicides among youth, but does not explicitly suggest that "Straight Pride" played a role in the deaths (although that inference could be drawn, that would be original research/synthesis). The wikilink to LGBT suicides similarly stops short of linking expressions of "Straight Pride" to LGBT deaths. Because "Straight Pride" has different aspects, including rejection of affirmative action status, rejection of public displays of affection, as wellas homophobia and hate, I need to see a more exlplicit link between straight pride and suicides before inclusion in the article body, let alone the lead paragraph. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference.
 * Sorry, didn't see your explanation before creating the thread below. I will clarify the sentence to avoid the false implication you have seen. Diego (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. In my view the coverage of the incident by two independent newspapers with both of them reporting on the topic of LGBT suicide as relevant to the event merits having it as the reason why the press covers those incidents.Diego (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead section and suicide of young people
The sentence removed in the lead was supported by the Daily Herald stating that "Monday was specifically designated to recognize recent gay student suicides resulting from bullying across the nation" and quoting a student saying “That's where the bad feelings started, because they chose to wear the shirts on a day specifically about gay teen suicide”; also the back of the "straight pride" t-shirt quoted leviticus'" they shall surely be put to death." I think it's fair to say that it relates the slogan to the LGBT suicides. I've reinstated the sentence with a second source supporting it, please discuss the reason if you don't find it's appropriate. Diego (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With those extra clarifications, good point. But long term I think we need to look at that the sentence is too specialized for the lead, and possibly the inference is too broad for the special case that it is drawn from. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither reference *explicitly* links a "Straight Pride" rally, T-shirt, or incident to LGBT suicide. The references discuss marginalization and a higher suicide rate, but these are not explicitly linked to Straight Pride. If you can find a reference linking the two then the statement would be valid, otherwise it's synthesis and must be removed (the synthesis being: "Marginalization of homosexuals is a cause of suicide among LGBT youth. "Straight Pride" is an expression of majority insensitivity and marginalization of LGBT issues. "Straight Pride" is a cause of LGBT suicide." TreacherousWays (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworked to clarify what was the actual link so that the above inference is not made. Maybe the summarized telling of the incident sould be moved to the Background section since only one event was related to that? Diego (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Current: "Straight Pride" backlash incidents have generated some controversy and media attention, with at least one of them concerning the right to free speech[5] and another one for being used during a memorial of suicides of LGBT adolescents.[6][4]
 * Proposed: "Straight Pride" backlash incidents have generated sporadic controversy and media attention. School policies and court decisions regarding freedom of expression have drawn particular attention, spotlighting individuals protesting LGBT days in support of marginalized and suicide-prone LGBT adolescents.
 * Though "suicide-prone" sounds dismissive and somehow wrong. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, that's better prose than mine. "Suicide-prone LGBT adolescents" is POVish, and "protesting LGBT days" makes it looks like more than one incident of that kind; maybe this mix making emphasis on what both school incidents have in common:
 * "Straight Pride" backlash incidents have generated sporadic controversy and media attention. School policies and court decisions regarding freedom of expression have drawn particular attention, spotlighting individuals protesting school policies against harassment of LGBT adolescents. (copy-edited for correct grammar, of course). Diego (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, it got covered as a "straight pride" situation which was in response to a "gay pride" day.  The an interviewed person who was opposed to "straight pride" (clever as they should be) highlighted the suicide aspect of the gay pride day combined with the nastiness of the part of the bible verse.  So I guess that the connection to suicides is actually "spin" put on by one interviewed person.  Not sure where that leaves us, but thought I would note that.  Certainly valid content  for the article.   Possibly an overreaching sentence.   Time will tell whether or not it (or, more likely, something like it) is suitable for the lead.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In my recent work on the article, I have NOT found reliable sources that ties any "straight pride" event to LGBT suicide. The point of "gay pride" events is typically for gays and gay supporters to band together due to past/current discrimination against gays, effectively to say "it's ok to be gay, we're not ashamed" and such.  I would recommend the lead paragraph say ""Straight Pride" backlash incidents have generated some controversy and media attention." and omitting the following language "with at least one of them concerning the right to free speech[5] and another one for being used during a memorial of suicides of LGBT adolescents."   The import of the last words comes across as implying that these straight pride protesters are somehow condoning suicide, which I see no reported evidence of.  Obviously I know the Bible specifically says gays should be put to death, but most Christians do not endorse that view even though its the primary basis for opposing gheys.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that that would be a good move.  The detailed coverage of that particular material could go into the body of the article as such. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to imply that straight pride manifestations caused suicides, but two people have seen that in my wording. I've changed it to a version developed above together with TreacherousWays that focus on the more clear "harassment". I saw a connection with LGBT suicide as reported by the newspapers, but it was an indirect one (adolescent suicides->Ally Week->straigth pride T-shirts) and thus not apt for the lede. The whole incident is already at the "High School T-Shirt incidents" section anyway. Diego (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Michigan Tea Party

 * Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought those shirts appeared at only one tea party rally. Don't overplay this one incident, when I first started revising the article it suggested the sale of such t-shirts at tea party rallies had been more common.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I misread it as an ongoing activity, but the source just mentions one. The comment has been reworded in our article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  14:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can get 100,000 google hits of people selling a wide range of straight pride stuff. This is a sky-is-blue statement.  People have been rapidly deleting, narrowing etc.  North8000 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can also get thousands of google hits for places where I can get bumperstickers saying "My Dog is a Honor Student of the K-9 Obedience Kollege". That doesnt mean its encyclopedic nor that my dog should have an article or the K-9 Obedience Kollege is relevant. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mere statement that the stuff is being sold. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then find secondary sources that talk about all those vendors. The claim of "blue sky obvious" also says that such claims if challenged are easily proven by methods other than original research of primary docs. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The immediate deletion (vs. tagging) of sky-is-blue obvious undisputed statements is very unusual and contrary to the wp:prove that you linked to. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its always the WP:BURDEN to provide sources for challenged materials. Particularly in controversial articles and subjects. You may object that I removed, rather than {cn}. Your objection is so noted. but I find it particularly troubling that even when you did provide a "source", it didnt actually support the claims that were in our article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You went off topic and talked about the overall article instead of the the text in question. The text in question is/was: "A variety of straight pride products are manufactured and marketed including T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee cups, I-Phone cases, bumper stickers and ties."  Do you call that statement so in-question / controversial so much that it needed immediate deletion instead of tagging for sourcing?   North8000 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Particularly in the current instance where the originally worded claim of some type of wide market impacts upon the very issues under contention in the AfD: whether "SP" is random unconnected usages of non encyclopedic nature or some type of organized/widespread "phenomena". --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What I had in my previous post IS the original text/wording, in it's entirety. And so there were no such claims, or claims of any sort. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see that this discussion is going to provide any further benefit to the article. We now have a statement and a source that verifies the content. Done. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My concerns remain, and furthered by your subsequent edit, but life's too short to worry further about this particular item. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * so was your original content intended to imply some sort of a widespread "straight-pride-industrial-complex" that should be seen as a basis to "keep" the article, or not. I am confused. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The event does seem to be a one-time event, but the reaction was outrage across the nation by LGBT groups. This widespread outrage and the national prominence of the Tea Party movement is what makes this one event noteworthy. drs (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * as a particular usage of "straight pride", maybe OK. the article had originally consisted primarily of list of events of its usage, so i am not sure we want to go back to that model. but original intent of source/quote/section was apparently to show the existence of some type of "straight-pride-industrial-merchandising complex", and that is not at all supported by this source talking about a one item one merchant one time.--  The Red Pen of Doom  13:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * as i looked, that event and that source have already been incorporated into the "Background" section, so there is no need to call it out again. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering Red Pen's question, no, my intent was simply to say "A variety of straight pride products are manufactured and marketed including T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee cups, I-Phone cases, bumper stickers and ties." nothing more, nothing less. Which was the exact and total wording before it got assaulted. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You really do need to stop grossly mischaracterizing what happened. And you should also read the notice down by the button you click to save "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." 1) removing unsourced content is absolutely permissible. And having the article statements actually and accurately reflect what is stated in the source every wikipedians duty. Your continued protestations that we should leave your wildly inaccurate interpretation of the source is the only assault that is happening, and it it you assaulting the primary content policies of wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the material and the sequence of events are are in the article history and talk page as it happened. IMO the full sequence shows it is not what you described but let's just let anyone see for themselves. I called it an assault, you called it permissible under Wikipedia rules. I think that both statements are accurate. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Red Pen of Doom's deletion of the section on the Michigan Tea Party event. The background section treats the Michigan event merely in passing. The reaction of the LBGT community is not mentioned. If the tea party event is to be included in the background it should include the reaction and its national flare. Thanks drs (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the information to the Background section. I am okay with the move so long as the significance of the national LBGT reaction is included. It should not take much effort to collaborate on improvements, IMO. drs (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue, here. To my way of thinking, the documented selling of products endorsing "Straight Pride" at *any* event would seem to support the contention that Straight Pride (as a phenomenon) exists. Because this article is being considered for deletion, removing properly-referenced text identifying an exhibition of Straight Pride - however modest - would at this juncture be inappropriate. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * lots of junk gets hawked at festivals etc. with no meaning for anything other than someone thinks they can make some money at it. here are a half dozen vendors selling "nuke a gay whale for christ" paraphernalia      - doesnt mean that there an actual "phenomena" behind that which is somehow notable. --  The Red Pen of Doom  04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that particular material is wp:notable; so that is a straw man. It IS a piece further establishing as a subject. Notability is a criteria for the existence of article, not of pieces of content within them. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your comment is about. I was responding to "the documented selling of products endorsing "Straight Pride" at *any* event would seem to support the contention that Straight Pride exists". If we follow that logic as the bar, the products endorsing "Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ"  as sold at numerous events is a phenomena "exists". --  The Red Pen of Doom  16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One would think that if the subject was as weak as some claim, then folks would not feel the need for an aggressive, intensive, rushed effort to remove material and sources from the article, as this article has been subjected to. I'm speaking about the whole last week, not just this particular example. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * if the "michigan tea party merchandise" is a typical example of how poorly article content was actually "supported" by sources, then aggressive, intensive, rushed efforts are certainly warranted. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That comments on only one one of the many cases of aggressive removal of sources and material, and implies a norm that does not exist.   Content must be supportable by sources, and supported by sources if challenged or likely to be challenged.  The section in question started as "A variety of straight pride products are manufactured and marketed including T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee cups, I-Phone cases, bumper stickers and ties."  It was deleted (not tagged) within hours. It's slow/difficult to find a secondary source that restates the obvious (witness tens of thousands of hits in google of people selling this stuff).  Deleting (rather then tagging) an undisputed sky-is-blue obvious statement within hours of its posting is an example of what I'm talking about, and this is contrary to Wikipedia norms and guidelines (which would have been to tag it if anything) although, as you noted, the removal does not violate policy.   North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a complete misunderstanding of "sky is blue obvious". They are claims that are completely trivial to source. If it takes you longer than 60 seconds to find a source for "sky is blue" then its probably just because you have a very very very slow connection. If it takes you longer than 2 days to find a source because its "difficult to find", then it obviously is in a completely different class than "sky is blue" obvious and we can wait until you find one to have such a claim in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't transition between disputing on an issue into getting insulting. What you just said is not correct, if by "source" you mean one that would withstand an assault (secondary RS). Something that is sky-is-blue obvious CAN be difficult to source in that way because quality sources do not waste their time repeating the obvious.  This is certainly a case of that.   Nobody (including yourslf) has disputed the veracity of the statement. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 335,000 results (0.31 seconds). I dont know that your claim has any merit. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen of Doom, you've got me thinking. The "nuke a gay whale for christ" shirts and so forth are resonably clear responses to "no nukes" "gay pride" and "Jesus Saves". They're not emotional, they're a wry comment on the ubiquity of the target movements. The "Straight Pride" products refer only to the Gay Pride movement, and the Straight Pride products evoke a uniquely passionate non-humorous response from some in the gay community. Surely that seriousness of response is significant in some way? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you can disregard "humor" from "serious" responses to issues (cf A Modest Proposal). And the repeated conflation of the same three fairly divergent topics "no nukes" "gay pride" and "Jesus Saves" would indicate MORE notability for the unusual-ness. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Within that framework, I could possibly support merging "Straight Pride" with LGBT rights opposition, although I think that's a poor fit. Much of the antipathy towards this article is expressed by equating "Straight Pride" with various hate movements and an anti-gay agenda. The images associated with Straight Pride seem to vary between lightly mocking (the shades-of-gray rainbow) to an actual celebration of heterosexuality. Straight Pride seems more concerned with reverse discrimination and a perceived rejection of "normalcy". I honestly find it hard to characterize, and acknowledge that my difficulty may, in the end, be caused by a lack of definition that may be fatal to this article. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * T.W., if you have sources describing straight pride as a celebration of heterosexuality, then by all means please bring in them here, they could be used to provide balance between different points of view. But I don't think they exist - even the conservative sources I've found mentioning the term do it as a direct criticism of gay pride. A well-sourced section describing the arguments from opposite political spectrum would help to provide the definition you find lacking. Diego (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

links to AfD discussions incorrect
Can someone fix the links to the AfD discussions, they are not displaying correctly. The date is showing for the most recent discussion Articles_for_deletion/Straight_pride_(3rd_nomination), but the displayed link is going to the original discussion from 2006 Articles for deletion/Straight pride and there is no mention of the second discussion from 2007 Articles for deletion/Straight pride (2nd nomination). I dont understand the template parameters.-- The Red Pen of Doom  14:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * all done now. thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Per the suggestion from User:Jenova20 in the above section, I've proposed a merge to Gay pride as this barely notable concept is a reaction to gay pride and is best covered in that parent article since we just don't have enough encyclopedic content for a separate treatment. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: clearly passes WP:N as a standalone article. Dozens of sources cover frequent "Straight Pride Days" at secondary schools and college campuses. Brazil's "Straight Pride Day" received significant international coverage and is notable in its own right. This is not just "a reaction to gay pride"... The First Amendment implications are extremely significant and important. Chambers v. Babbitt is a US District Court Case where the First Amendment right to wear the "Straight Pride" shirt was upheld. The court case also has extensive coverage in RS. The numbers speak for themselves:
 * "Straight pride" gets 360,000 hits
 * "Heterosexual pride" gets 114,000 hits
 * – Lionel (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP:GOOGLEHITS and why we avoid it. Could you please point to the two most important sources on this subject?  I looked and could only find trivial sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Straight Pride is a fringe non-event. I strongly support a merge or deletion.
 * Even the best written stuff in the article already shows it as a homophobic reaction to LGBT equality (mostly taking place in schools and planned on Facebook).
 * And Lionelt's argument just would appear to show the article needs a rename to Straight pride day
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Does "Straight Pride" really exist if it is only mentioned in response to "Gay Pride"? I would say yes, it exists, but is poorly-defined and reactionary in nature. The strength or weakness of the Straight Pride "movement" (such as it is) is difficult to gauge because it is not organized. To what extent would a right-wing religious person identify themselves as a member of a "Straight Pride" movement, even if they espoused the vaguely-defined values of such a movement? I would identify it as a stub article, link it to the Gay Pride articles, and consider the possibilty of merging this with another as-yet-unidentified politically/socially-right-wing article. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting solution, but I'm more of a realist and I tend to go with what is rather than what should be. We don't have Conservative perspectives on LGBT rights, although we do have Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights.  But, we do have gay pride, and as a reaction to it, that article seems like the best target. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge or delete: Content fork of LGBT rights opposition. The concept is synonymous with LGBT rights opposition, and the term exists and is notable solely as a reaction to Gay Pride. It thus belongs in either of those articles, most logically the former. Even then, it deserves no more than a very brief mention, at best, as the slogan has not received substantial attention in reliable independent sources. None of the sources provided even suggest that "Straight Pride" exists as a concept, movement or phenomenon in either the political, social, religious or philosophical sense except as a slogan used by sporadic unrelated isolated anti-LGBT protests. The slogan itself is not notable and trivial outside of this context, as it has never been discussed substantially in reliable independent sources. As it exists now, the article is an indiscrimate catalogue or list of disjointed, minor and sporadic protests (or rather, mostly proposed-but-never-executed protests) against Gay Pride events of little noteworthiness or relevance that have been culled from Google searches. None of the sources provide make any connection between the individual events and each other, or between the events and a larger cause except LGBT rights opposition in general. Attempting to combine them into what appears to be a coherent movement with an overarching philosophy is not supported by reliable independent sources, and amounts to OR and SYNTH. Selection of the items on the list was carried out by WP editors with no guidance from reliable sources, solely on the basis of whether the protest used the slogan "straight pride" or anything similar that the editors consider synonomous. The composition of the list therefore also is exclusively OR and Synth. I cannot envision the article being expanded using reliable independent sources in a way that does not grossly violate WP:OR,WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, WP:STANDALONE and WP:COATRACK. Google hits are exclusively trivial, tangential or not noteworthy, at best transient coverage of minor anti-LGBT protests. Despite repeated requests, merge opponents have failed to produce any sources discussing "Straight Pride" in a larger sense independent of LGBT rights opposition, and my own search turned up none. Arguments against merge are exclusively variations of WP:GHITS, WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO and WP:ITSNOTABLE, which are irrelevant, as the topic already has a stand-alone article, namely LGBT rights opposition. Material on the high school cases metioned are not noteworthy in terms of LGBT rights opposition, but might be noteworthy in terms of free speech. These incidents should be merged to School speech (First Amendment). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support merge or delete: On an ideological level, an article that raises isolated, incoherent cases of anti-LGBT backlash into a supposed movement is characteristic of Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, and on those grounds alone it needs deletion. However, I strongly believe that all negative reactions and efforts to counter the LGBT movement and the discrimination and violence against LGBT people must be documented. Thus, while such interventions to expand a blurb into a full-blown article are enough to justify speedy deletion, I strongly support merging.
 * On a writing/composition level, “Straight Pride” is a clear and prime example of LGBT rights opposition that needs documenting under the correct articles, i.e. under Gay Pride and LGBT rights opposition. Although it may seem obvious, “Straight pride” notions depend on Gay Pride and LGBT rights in their entirety because they are backlash due to the lack of understanding of LGBT issues. In other words, an article on “Straight Pride” would need to go into detail on Gay Pride, such an article being pointless because the Gay Pride article already exists. A simple redirect to a “Straight Pride” or “Opposition to Gay Pride” section is all that’s necessary. The scarce and disparate examples cited as support are purely anecdotal and in no way merit an article. In fact, even the stub is inflated. A paragraph of three or four sentences is more than an ample length. Following my own time schedule, I volunteer to complete the merges, the more so in that there is other, notable material, e.g. Queen Sofía of Spain’s homophobic comments on Gay Pride, that can dovetail nicely into the disjointed factoids in the “Straight Pride” stub.--CJ Withers (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a merge then  J e n o v a  20 16:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am dumbfounded that you see consensus to merge. Obviously there is no consensus. – Lionel (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm dumbfounded you saw a movement from a few facebook protests and tried to link them together (WP:OR + WP:AGF).
 * Shouldn't have to keep posting about Act In Good Faith but you don't seem to take it on board.
 * merge or delete, consensus certainly isn't supporting your idea though Lionelt  J e n o v a  20 10:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The nerve of some people. Jenova, here you warn and alert editors about your fear that the Christians will start an editwar. Now that's what I call creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.– Lionel (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The term "straight pride" is notable and this article in particular is supported by reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help at all. Asserting that something is notable without showing how or why is equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT.  Further, you haven't provided any reliable sources for us to look at. Closer, please dismiss this non-vote, non-discussion comment accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Gay pride" and "Straight pride" are different terms. Hhhggg (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How? Straight Pride does not exist, no movement of the same name exists. And all the article lists is 2 incidents where kids organized Facebook protests to disrupt a week of anti-bullying campaigns in a homophobic manner.  J e n o v a  20 09:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look google results: аbout 569,000 text results and about 16,600 pictures. So Straight Pride exists. Hhhggg (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Google hits prove nothing, show me reliable sources. I could type anything in Google and get results, what i can't and what this article has done is tie them together to create a movement with only one reference. And even that reference lists just one example in the news.  J e n o v a  20 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the Chicago high school incident, the Sao Paulo city council voted to establish a Straight Pride Day. It made international headlines. The College Republicans designated a Straight Pride Week. Youth For Western Civilization designated November as Straight Pride Month. All of these events are well-covered in Google searches. There are abundant sources with which to develop an expansive article. – Lionel (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Young Americans for Freedom also received coverage in reliable sources regarding their straight pride event.– Lionel (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: From my viewpoint, the "Straight Pride" concept is in opposition to "Gay Pride", perhaps inspired by those who want to stand up and be recognized for what they believe, just as the "Gay Pride" folk do. Those who use the term "Straight Pride" seem to be seeking to be treated as budding supporters of a unique self-concept. To merge this with the other is to fail to capture the independence of these supporters. drs (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just for the doubleplusungood-ality of this suggestion. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. I've had a look into the topic and expanded the article. I'd certainly like to hear any feedback. Whether this is a notable topic remains to be seen, it's already been deleted in the past. I'm not even certain which way I'd vote on a deletion debate. Having looked at the deleted version of the page, it generally unsourced and covered with problematic statements - so at least the article looks better than it did. I've done my best to keep away from overtly biased sources, there's still 4 in there at the moment, from before I started, I'd recommend their removal. Oh and I've collapsed the above discussion, let's try and keep this on topic, please.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC) - CJ Withers has boldly merged much into the Gay Pride article. It doesn't appear problematic - I'd say that seems like the best option. Support   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Straight Pride (or Heterosexual Pride) is a slogan used to counter the perceived double standard of Gay Pride events" - can we have a reference and some expansion on the first line for this since i'm fairly certain that: (1) Gay Pride welcomes everyone and has never limited itself to just the gay community, (2) what double standard? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the double standard is evident, in that a pride event for one can exist, but not for the other - often the case with minority views. Having said that, I used the word perceived for exactly that reason - Gay Pride isn't exclusively for gay people. Fire a cn on the first line if you like, someone could probably do with expanding the lead, or discussing what it is further in the article - the concept part could do with more work.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But when a pride parade is about uniting the community and getting everyone together, a straight pride event in protest of this is actually causing a double standard as it's protesting and i seriously doubt they would be too happy if openly gay people turned up. See what i'm saying? It's a protest about perceived special rights for the LGBT community as it used to say, now it isn't right.  J e n o v a  20 14:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But the perception of a "Gay Pride" parade is that it is for gay people and culture. Not least because of the title.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost...It's a celebration/street party event for gay pride and culture (as it would be since they/we fund it) but not for gay people only. They used to be more political but a lot of equality measures have changed that and meant that it is now mainly just a weekend street party with entertainment, live bands and circus style acts for anyone who wants to go. There's no need for it to be political anymore as the only few equality hurdles left are being achieved anyway. I can't speak for the world but that's the UK Pride parades anyway. Just because the name is Gay Pride, it doesn't mean it's a gay-only event as hetero pride is, just that they're the most likely to go and know about it. This is all evident from the parade anyway, it attracts crowds of everything from teenagers, camera crews, political parties and candidates, local mayors, and anyone else who just goes to show support.  J e n o v a  20 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who has noticed the exteme irony here? Example: take Worm's statement (emph. mine): "Well, the double standard is evident, in that a pride event for one can exist, but not for the other." Now substitute "event" with "article." Get it? – Lionel (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionel, when talking about articles, wikipedia's policies and guidelines are key - there is no co-ordinated Straight pride movement, or not a notable one in any case. The slogans are regularly used to promote homophobia. The existence of one thing does not require the existence of its opposite, though the idea that it does is common - especially in adolescents. Hence why the majority of incidents are at schools and universities.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Worm, I'm not sure where you get the idea that a Gay Pride parade "is for gay people and culture". That's as silly as saying St. Patrick's Day Parade is only for Irish people, or that Halloween is only for pagans.  As a heterosexual who has proudly marched in a gay pride parade as part of an organized group, I am here to tell you that this perception is entirely wrong.  As for your claim that there is a double standard, I'm afraid you've missed the above discussion explaining that all of the straight pride events are reactions to gay pride.  This is not a double standard, but rather an argument for a singular topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not my perception Viriditas, a general one - and I have sources for it, academic ones too. I've worked hard for neutrality here, I don't consider straight represents my opinions. Indeed, the fact that you think it might makes me think I've done an alright job.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it the first time, and I tend to avoid generalizations, so I'm curious about this claim about a "general perception". Could you tell me what this academic source says?  Per WP:V, that's a reasonable request.  Not sure what you mean by your statement "straight represents my opinions", as it never had any bearing on my comment.  But please, cite me what the source says, as I'm extremely skeptical about this claim. Gay pride is a celebration of gay people and culture, just like St. Patrick's Day is a celebration of Irish people and culture.  Anyone who has ever attended a gay pride event would know that.  The idea that a gay pride event is for gay people is ridiculous.  In fact, the complete opposite is true.  Gay pride events do not discriminate between straight and gay in any way at all.  It's a celebration of diversity, not homogeneity.  That's one of the reasons (but not the only one) that the rainbow is such a powerful symbol. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * indeed it's a perfectly reasonable request, one ill be happy to comply with on Monday when I'm back in the office (on phone ATM). You may however be right about the generalisation, and I will look at ways to improve that on Monday too.. I missed a word "straight pride" doesn't represent my opinions.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never got the rainbow: it always reminds me of Jesse Jackson's rainbow coalition. And the yellow equal sign on the blue square... just cryptic. And annoying: the colors are the same as my alma mater. Bummer. Now the symbol of straight pride, the man and the woman holding hands: that's powerful.– Lionel (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely, if "straight pride" is a notable topic, we would expect to see some discussion of its symbol that you claim is powerful. Could you point me to some reliable sources, Lionel? As for Jesse Jackson, I don't see the connection.  He uses the traditional rainbow arc while LGBT groups use a rectangle. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is becoming a battleground with dramatic changes every few days. That does not show reliability in the slightest to me. And for whoever bought up the gay flag, the colours celebrate diversity and each one has a meaning. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. The only project to start an edit war was?...Yep, a religious one.  J e n o v a  20 18:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - nuff note for a stand alone. - You  really  can  08:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Although there are a number of articles about "straight pride" days, there are no articles that connect these events and therefore this article can only be synthesis.  TFD (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - supposed Google counts for "straight pride" and "heterosexual pride" were bandied about here. However, Google tends to give very exaggerated numbers on the first page; it's best to try to find the final page of results that Google will give you, allowing it to ignore multiple paths to the same content. For straight pride, we find "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 617 already displayed." For "heterosexual pride", we find, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 769 already displayed." So they aren't nearly so prevalent as the early cited figures suggest. -Nat Gertler (talk)
 * Oppose — interesting article about a worldwide phenomenon. Too notable to be ghettoized in some other article's "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. (And shame on all the POV-pushers here removing sourced information with the intention of merging or deleting the article while the merge discussion is on-going.)  Let it grow!  --  Kenatipo    speak! 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide one single reliable source that documents this "worldwide phenomenon". Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article at present makes no claim that it's a worldwide phenomenon. In fact, Dominus Vobisdu and others have decided that the article will not mention any incidents outside the U.S. even though we know there have been many.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source makes the claim that "straight pride" is a worldwide phenomenon? Please answer this question. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - While I'm seeing coverage of individual incidents of use of "Straight Pride" as a slogan, I haven't been seeing coverage of it as a general phenomenon; it's separate coverage of individual incidents, generally within a context of reaction to a gay pride event. As such, it's best covered within that context. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I also think a merge to LGBT rights opposition would be appropriate. In all of these documented cases as well as in the minimal coverage that exists of the concept in general, it is inseparable from opposition to LGBT rights and to gay pride. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose & Keep as is  I'm sure that there are folks who would rather that the article didn't exist and would like to get rid of it by merging, deleting etc.  (just as others would wish that the "gay pride" article didn't exist) but its a real topic, has established wp:notability, and has plenty of content.  North8000 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Then where are the sources on "straight pride"? Not on this event that happens to mention "straight pride", or that event that uses a phrase kinda similar to straight pride; where's the coverage on straight pride as a topic? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in addition to the suitable sources already in the article as references? I googled the phrase "Straight pride" with the quote marks for only explicit matches on the phrase. Got over 500,000 hits.  I scanned though the first 600 and they were all germane and on this topic by this name. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So no argument for keeping it again, just pointing at the article. Google Hits do not count either. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 23:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I already said and supported why it should stay, basing what I said on the Wikipedia criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than claiming notability you did no such thing and notability is still being argued about. Why is this notable? How? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:notability is one of the core criteria for being a separate article, and that IS about sources. I just looked up and added another source along with an extract from it. It was EASY.    I'll bet there are at least 2 more :-) suitable ones in those 500,000.  :-) North8000 (talk)
 * So we have a few "reliable" sources on a few separate events for a "notable" article.
 * That does not mean much. All the references show it as hardly notable for anything other than very small-scale LGBT rights opposition, homophobia and a good candidate for merge. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - No logical reason to merge. Topic is reliable per the dozen or so sources on the page and many of the shortcomings of the article are due to obstructionism from those opposed to this article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've seen several comments that in essence state that it must be shown that the material/events etc. covered must essentially be shown to be tied together in an organized movement in order for it to be an OK topic. This is wrong on several levels. First, no such criteria exists.  Second, such interconnection is rare for movements and significantly extant and significantly covered phenomena such as this, yet they are still valid topics. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not rare at all, you just can't find them because there's no movement and the article is combining "Straight Pride"/ "Straight Pride Day"/ "Straight Pride Movement" so you're combining all 3 and listing random incidents. Also we do not use blogs as reliable sources and i don't think many would argue the ChristianPost is neutral here. You may also remember the last time i encountered you you were edit warring on Homophobia to change the meaning of the word against all the reliable references. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter ad hominem is also a mis-characterization. The former is also asserts a false implied premise that the coverage of this is limited to blogs. The one reference that you referred to as biased I use ONLY to cite that the city council passed the legislation.  And there are biased sources that still qualify as wp:rs's and still provide reliable info on matters of fact, with the New York Times being an example.   Finally I was going to edit my comment to include significant phenomena,  as it is not clear whether or not it is  or is yet a movement.   I'll do that now. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So how can you add claims like that with no reliable sources? Go right ahead, i can tag the lot as "citation needed".
 * And homophobia is not a "mis-characterization" you just assert that you are correct over every other person and every other reference. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ??The simple fact cited by that biased source (just that the city council passed the legislation) is "sky is blue" obvious and covered by multiple sources. If your are truly questioning that obvious statement I can add more sources.  North8000 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sources are irrelevant if they just passingly and trivially mention that the phrase "straight pride" was used as a slogan, and if they do not connect the event in question with the other events in the list under an umbrella concept of "straight pride", which must be discussed depth as more than a mere slogan. Right now, this article is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of totally unrelated events, none of which are particularly notable or noteworthy, as they have generated only ephemeral news coverage. Msot of the events never came to fruition, such as the Sao Paolo event. This violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. So far, we have no sources that state that "straight pride" exists except as a slogan coincidentally thought up by various individuals with no connection to each other. No "movement" or "philosophy" exists in any of the sources provided, and trying to create one is OR and Synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you are placing mis-statements in the wrong venue, I'm forced to make at least a succinct correction regarding what I said.  "Mis-characterization" was referring to your summary of what I was saying there.  And what I was saying is that there are significant opposing viewpoints on assigning a "phobia" term to ALL views in opposition to homosexuality, and that the article improperly states the viewpoints of ONE side of that controversy as fact and in the voice of Wikipedia.  This is only to correct your improper erroneous assertion of what I said. This is not to debate the topic here which would be the wrong place for it. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I tend to chime in on whichever group or view is getting victimized. If I were in Saudi Arabia I'd be a gay activist.  At this  article(and the other article you refer to) views the other way are being victimized. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you shouldn't...But i will tag anything unsourced as "citation needed" and i will remove blogs from the page. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That looked like a news story from the publication. How do know it was just a blog? Second, there is no basis for deleting sources that are allegedly too weak. You can argue that they are not sufficiently strong or wp:RS to support the statement that cited them, but not remove them for allegedly not being sufficient. Your deletion of multiple sources is especially problematic given the discussion that is currently going on here. North8000 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not going to defend being antisemitic because I am a Jew" LOL! Jenova: doesn't their religion (setting aside that they aren't observant) say that homosexuality is an abomination? – Lionel (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing about it in the article...If you can get reliable sources and place it inthe article then fine but you can't just create a movement from a few "Straight Day"s across the world and the article needs to reflect that, which at the moment it doesn't. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could do your article improvement suggestions rather than require doing it others. Hhhggg (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could, as could you, as could everyone. I'd rather see this merged with Gay pride though since it's based on a homophobic reaction to that, which is why so far all we've seen is Facebook protests to disrupt anti-gay bullying week and right wing mayors giving the go ahead for a straigh pride day/protest. Whether or not such protests/marches/parades actually happened is something else. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "homophoby" like it is a bad thing. Hhhggg (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...??? Because it is? The oppression and denial of human rights to any group is a bad thing. Are you going to defend being antisemitic aswell? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to defend being antisemitic because I am a Jew. But I suppose that being a homosexual should not be protected by public law and should not be a human right. Hhhggg (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? Then by your own logic why should you have human rights for being Jewish? You're showing MASSIVE POV right and I suggest you learn what human rights actually are and listen to the part of your religion that speak of compassion and treating others how you expect to be treated. This discussion though is over  J e n o v a  20 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a follower of Judaism so I ignore your arguments based on this religion. And I do not care about what you think about what human rights actually are. Hhhggg (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ignoring for the moment the fact that gay people are human please stick to the subject of the requested merge. Lest more trolls appear. This is trailling off and it's not at all helpful or appropriate.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although the term may seem to be in response to "Gay Pride" i don't see that as any reason why it should be merged just because it relates to that. I suggest do further investigation and see what comes up before we suggest merging. A little bit of clean up may also be better. If nothing more than "incidents" appear, than i support the merge. BUt as of now, it's like trying to merge something we know little about.Lucia Black (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger: Concept of "straight pride" protests is an individually notable topic, at least for anyone who hasn't lived under a rock for the last 25 years. Yes, "citing a rock" is not a reliable source.  The straight pride article needs improvement.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Milowent, I noticed your comment here. The main discussion is now at  Articles for deletion/Straight pride (3rd nomination)  North8000 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been doing some work on the article before opining there.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think enough people are opposed to this and its been going on long enough, to remove the discussion tag.  D r e a m Focus  11:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I never weighed in because it appeared wp:snow / over and then superceded by the AFD (and merge discussion within the AFD) North8000 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTICE: Requesting administrative close. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger Per extensive reasons given at Articles for deletion/Straight pride (3rd nomination) the extensive merger discussions at the AFD.  (If this isn't closed yet, there's mine) North8000 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the merge result was discussed at the AfD more recently than this one, and we didn't arrive to a consensus there. This previous merge discussion should be no different. Diego (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noting AfD result. Collect (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

White pride
An explicit reference to "anti-homosexual" activity is not the same as an expression of "Straight Pride" any more than an expression of "anti-white" activity is an expression of "Black Pride". I removed the wikilink to "white pride" and strongly feel than any links to hate groups or hate activity must be properly and explicitly referenced. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "white pride" link is already present and explicitly referenced in the text, I copied it to the See also section since the parallelism of names and topics makes it an obvious navigation target for people browsing the page. If you feel so strongly about its removal, I'm OK with having it only in the prose. Diego (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm not very comfortable with that text, either. When I skimmed the reference, the focus is on recruitment through anti-gay activity. That's not the same thing as pro-heterosexual activity, and I don't see references to Straight Pride so much as I see references to anti-gay. I do seem to recall hearing some sort of call for "straight pride" in relation to a white supremamcist group but (to be honest) I may be mis-remembering something stupid like an episode of Law & Order or American History X. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Theodore G. Maravelias
Diego Moya removed text indicating that Theodore G. Maravelias had organized a Straight Pride rally, with the comment, " .... Now this one IS synth and undue weight to one living person ..." Although there may be BLP issues here that require a strong reference, identifying a person as an organizer of "Straight Pride" rallies seems to me to be completely on-point. I reverted the deletion, but am receptive to argument. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the way the sentence is worded what raised my red flags: "notably, student Theodore G. Maravelias [...] went on to a career of opposing rights for gays including gay marriage". I can't see anything in the sources that merit having this one man singled out. First, I can't verify from the sources that Maravelias organized the parade, only that he spoke at it. Second, the "career of opposing rights for gays" would be relevant if the man had organized other straight pride incidents, but the NPR article describes him against gay marriage, not gay pride itself; this could make him relevant with respect to the general topic of opposition to gay rights, but not specifically about straight pride. I don't see any reason to talk about this person in this article above all the other participants in the various events. I think the sentence should be removed or reworked to only describe his participation in the first rally. Diego (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, how does a career in "anti gay rights" have to do with the specific topic of this article? If he went on to lead say a Focus on the Family "Straight Pride" wing, OK, but otherwise its merely someone whose lifelong work is anti gay rights. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC) --  The Red Pen of Doom  19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "First, I can't verify from the sources that Maravelias organized the parade" - I think the 1991 NYT article(s) identify him as the organizer, but I will agree he doesn't need to be singled out. (There are sources discussing his later work in light of his early work, but they aren't the best sources.)  I don't see why there are any BLP issues here, presumably Mr. Maravelias would not shy away from his accomplishments.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed the sentence "The founder of the "straight pride" rally...". The potential problem with BLP would not come from the person disagreeing with the sentence, but with including that person in a way where the relevance to the article is not directly and unambiguously supported with the sources available, in this case the 2012 NPR article which doesn't talk about straight pride. Diego (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that during the deletion discussion, there has been a constant undercurrent of "this doesn't really exist". In this instance, we have a specific rally, with a specific topic, organized by a specific group and headed by a specific individual. Nothing vague about it, which is why I rather like the attribution. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, during the afd the discussion there were repeated sentiments that all we have are scattered examples of "a specific rally, with a specific [phrase], organized by a specific [local] group and headed by a specific individual" and no real connective tissue that they are in any way a related coherrent "phenomena" - this doesnt change that analysis, it is just another example. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding your argument for removing the text. What, exactly, is your policy-backed objection to a properly-referenced explicit identification of the organizer of a well-documented Straight Pride rally? Keeping in mind that you have removed the text rather than refining or refocusing. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment above is responding to your characterization of arguments during the AfD. It has nothing to do with this removal of content that has zero to do with the subject of the article "straight pride" - its merely something that the guy did after he was involved in a straight pride event. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A 1991 Straight Pride rally organizer who is a sitting state representative with a continuing and prominent anti-gay-marriage agenda is relevent (though unflattering and counter to my argument that Straight Pride is not the same as anti-gay). Removing his current biogrpahical information may or may not be appropriate (though I consider his continuing animus noteworthy), but removing his name and thus the opportunity for continued reading and research is wrong-headed. I would really like to see a more concrete reason for removal as opposed to re-wording. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * your arguments for inclusion these details are all either WP:COATRACK or WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument for inclusion is that it is sourced and related. That's all that is needed. North8000 (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite - he's a living person, so the BLP policy comes into place. We should exercise editorial judgement on whether he's relevant, notable and write conservatively.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that zillions of other things constrain content.  I meant with respect to general exclusion/inclusion from the article. North8000 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a problem of verifiability, but primarily of WP:DUE weight - inclusion of this mention must be significant. What is the reason for mentioning the person that organized one of the several events included in the article, and what is the reason to mention his activism? There may be valid reasons for both, but we have to know them and they have to be directly relevant to the topic - as supported by reliable sources, not just our editorial judgement. I can see weak support for including him as organizer of one sraight pride (if only because he's the only person singled out by name in the references), but right now we don't have a direct connection to his career in any source. Diego (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been a proponent of stronger relevancy standards at wp:npov. But having to prove "significant" for each piece of material is not a part of either. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't carefully read the WP:UNDUE section at WP:NPOV: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" and " in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". The person organizing the rally is one aspect of this article that has been disputed, and thus should meet this standard, in special because this article is so controversial. Diego (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge
Now that the AfD discussion has been closed I'd like to suggest a straw poll to continue debating the fate this article should follow. The open discussion approach has already been tried and didn't reach a consensus; I think a separate discussion of each claim made at the AfD and previous merge discussions will place together all claims and counter-claims for each idea, reference or policy debated, and help clarify what consensus lurks behind the heated debate, thus avoiding going in circles like happened at the previous talks. The poll should be structured following all the caveats in the guideline so that the not-votes help the debate instead of hindering it. Thoughts? Diego (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I removed the recommendation to start a merge discussion from my closing statement, as there is currently an open merge discussion taking place above. ‑Scottywong | chat _  14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much out of the question as proposed. I, for one, do not value non-!votes in the slightest, and don't think they should be taken into account as far as establishing consensus is concerned. Second of all, there was already an RfC on this matter, and it needs to be taken into account. Another RfC with an adminsitrative closure would be needed to establish consensus. An informal straw poll would not be very convincing. Of course, anyone one who participated in the first RfC should be invited to participate in the second. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is not as much to have !votes as it's to have separate discussion threads for each subject that was debated at previous talks (notability, coatrack, indiscriminate/synth, what the target merge article should be, what is the main topic covered...). Instead of a poll we could just have a subsection for each main idea, with a small commitment by all to keep each thread on topic and move digressions to the corresponding section. That would serve the same purpose to have self-contained discussions with all related arguments at the same place. Diego (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A merge is a deletion. It was discussed here with results leaning strongly towards not merge (Don't know if it's considered still open or not, I never commented on it.), at which time it was AFD'd with merge also being considered.   I think it's time to move on.  And for individuals to either build or improve the article or move on.  North8000 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A merge is not a deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That merge discussion is now a month old, and its clear there is no consensus to merge. The world won't end if we wait 6 months before revisiting this article again.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I replied here above, but must have edit conflicted and closed the window. My thoughts are similar to Milowent's - the article is in a much better shape than when I nominated it for deletion, there was clearly no consensus on either the deletion or the merge. As such, I think we should move on from concepts of merging or deletion for a while, and see if we can get the article to be as good as it can be.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its been hanging around for 6 years, another 6 months for it to develop into a real article wont really hurt any more and will be greater evidence the next time around for claims that it can be turned into a real article. But if it is like most articles, once the inclusionists get a "no consensus", they drop from view and do not actually attempt to improve the article until they appear to !vote keep it can be improved to meet the criteria in the next round of AfD.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " ... In the next round of AfD ...? I suggest that if you feel that negatively about his article that perhaps you ought to refrain from editing it, and just put a sticky note on your laptop to re-nominate it for deletion in six months. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help some. Hopefully with that roughest patch behind us we could develop a nice working atmosphere here. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion
I think some (certainly not all, but significant amounts) of the problems with this article could be addressed by renaming it "Counteractions to Gay Pride" (or somesuch; I'm up for alternatives on the wording) and shifting the focus to that. With that: We could make redirects for Straight Pride, Heterosexual Pride, and Heterosexual Day that point to that article. This would seem to address the topics that people appear to actually want to address without fitting them into the odd frame of a slogan... and a slogan which isn't used in many of the cases discussed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We could pretty easily lump in most Heterosexual Pride events and Heterosexual Day, as they are specified by the reliable sources as being counteractions to Gay Pride events, even though they are not well sourced as being "Straight Pride".
 * Eliminate troubled inclusion of things that merely mention the existence of the slogan "Straight Pride", which lack info on the reasons for its use and even who was using it (such as the some-guy-at-a-Tea-Party rally example).
 * A thoughtful suggestion. Not sure what I think, but it is much more observant of what it is significantly a reaction to (orthodoxy or activist initiatives associated with gay pride rather than opposing LGBT rights)     than other merger ideas. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A nitpick: it would need a hyphen ("Counter-actions", not "Counteractions")... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several quotes which explictly self-identify Straight Pride events as pro-heterosexuality and not anti-homosexuality. The difference is significant, and in the absence of a stronger connection to the negative I would continue to oppose renaming or merging. I'm not positing that there is no anti-homosexuality resentment expressed, merely that to stress the negativity would be inaccurate in terms of the references I've seen. I submit that it will be more productive to attempt to establish what those who invoke "Straight Pride" espouse befor focusing on what they oppose (though that may be impossible). TreacherousWays (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just develop this article and then see where it goes. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune opinion piece
I removed this text: " .... In an opinion piece on the St. Charles incident, Eric Zorn (a staff writer for the Chicago Tribune) opined that "the expression 'Straight Pride' can only be read as a gratuitous and contemptuous response to the suggestion that gay people not be marginalized." ...  because it doesn't present information on Straight Pride, it presents the opinion of the author, and (possibly) by extension the opinions of the ChiTrib editors. If it belongs anywhere, it may belong in a "Reactions" section. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "opinion" exception in WP:RS explicitly states that an opinion piece can be used to establish the opinion of the author. As far as I can tell, and in the absence of a compelling argument, the author's opinion of Straight Pride is irrelevent. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with having a Reactions section where we keep opinions (I argued for something like that at some previous discussion); I don't see why it should be removed if it's not in that section - the opinion is also relevant to the St. Charles North High School incident it covers. The relevancy is, of course, that this is a reliable source discussing the topic of this article in detail. Given that it is used to establish the opinion of the author, having it is correct and according to policy. Diego (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I distrust reactions sections as places where just about anything goes; one can place *anything* in that section with the justfication that this person or that person said something. Once. In passing. On a blog. Reactions sections routinely end up larger than the article, and can be endless sources of contention. I would be willing to consider inclusion of a reactions section if we could agree to limit the material contained therein to opinions of national- and intrnationally-notable persons. The opinions of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and so on, as well as any laws passed restricting or permitting Straight Pride expressions might be meaningful. If we can find anything that significant. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And within that context, I don't see Zorn's opinion as significant, however honestly-held it may be. A ref indicating that it is a widely-held opinion might be worthy of note. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree to everything you said, except the part that Zorn's opinion is not "something, in passing, on a blog". In this particular case, it's a full-featured column in a prestigious newspaper commenting on the St. Charles North High School incident in a section that deals with the St. Charles North High School incident. It is *more* relevant here than in a potential Reactions section. Diego (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)