Talk:Gay pride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
  1. 2003 - present

Queen Sofia of Spain?[edit]

How are the purported Queen Sofia of Spain comment relevant to this article? Those comments where false or at least retracted. How about some comment about Madrid's Pride being the largest and more fun of Europe?


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

Origin of Gay Pride[edit]

I'm trying to correct mistakes regarding the origin of Gay Pride. The statement about GLF and GAA originally organizing the first march are not supported by any of the recognized references. The Brenda Howard reference appears to come from a blog post of questionable accuracy and, perhaps, from some conclusions based on shaky references. There is only one report of Howard attending meetings of the Christopher Street Liberation Day Umbrella Committee, and not as one of the primary members/organizers (Craig Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Ellen Broidy, Linda Rhodes, Michael Brown & Foster Gunnison) that formed the nexus of the coordinating group. Stnwll (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Any questions, feel free to ask us. CTJF83 chat 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Challenging the conventional wisdom is always fraught w/issues. Many people made contributions during this period and I'm reluctant to tread on any toes, but some of what's written is incorrect and unsupported by the record. Suggestions are welcome.Stnwll (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the external link to as the website is now offline and will not be back online, (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

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

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

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

This caused horrible conditions and disease.

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

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

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

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

Too much straight pride[edit]

The content merged from straight pride is given undue weight to the opposition section in general and the "straight pride" idea in particular. It's OK to have just a summary here, but all that verifiable content should be placed elsewhere - at the straight pride article if it survives AfD or at LGBT rights opposition otherwise. Diego (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the article fails to meet Undue weight and is on the verge of becoming an anti-Pride lobbying article. I fully support someone getting the shears out and cutting this by 75%. -- (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
STOP! As I was the only person working on this article, and not as a full-time job, I still haven't moved more info into the article. For example, the Pride parade article, aside from rehashing, is simply a LGBT pride event list. What's more, I'm currently working on a description section on pride events. So, until someone else wants to ADD more info about describing pride events, please do not remove any of the counter-pride incidents. Not only are they at the core of why pride exists, they also show the relevance of other, including extreme, views. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a weird rationale to make; the counter-pride incidents are a reaction to gay pride, not the reason why it exist; the Pride was created as a reaction to older affronts. It would make sense to emphasize those previous offenses that motivated it, not just the aftermath of reactions against it; together with scholarly analysis of gay pride meaning and yes, a summary of the content at LGBT pride parades; those are good topics for expansion. A summary section of the material already at straight pride and LGBT rights opposition (main articles for that section) makes sense, but not half the article. Nobody's suggesting to delete that content, only to move it to a place where it's not providing undue emphasis. (The "Incidents involving minors" are not even related to gay pride, but to school anti-harassment policies - they are unrelated other than by using the "straight pride" slogan). Diego (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
CJ i have to agree with Diego. Gay Pride existed before straight pride and straight pride is a reaction to gay rights and not gay pride. We need a small amount of straight pride info here but the rest should go in LGBT opposition and Homophobia as that's what those sources show. Thanks Jenova20 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Playing the devil's advocate is great, though not helpful unless people read _all_ of what I just wrote. The rationale is quite evident: direct negative reactions as all anti-LGBT actions have a combined source: homophobia and heterosexism. The backlash part is just nuanced or tricky versions of discrimination with the same anti-LGBT mindset. Let's face it: LGBT pride is, both from within the LGBT collective and outside, questioned, criticized, stigmatized, debated, and yes, opposed. Repeatedly. Annually. It would be dishonest and partial not to include the most notable of these, which are here and, I hope, will continue to be only a few. Portraying GP more positively than its own positive stance is uprooting it from its contemporary context as no one unanimously vote for GP. As to the length, I agree, but only compared to the article as is, i.e. incomplete and too short. That's why, I repeat, I am working on a longer description section (and I hope someone beats me to it or, better, joins in). In fact, it's also why I've been participating over the last several years, to improve the some key LGBT articles: Homophobia, Heterosexism, LGBT pride, etc. These full-fledged Wikipedia articles on such discrimination in addition to violence against LGBT people are well-covered areas, hence no need to rehash them within the GP article, save for a short line or two. Besides, in view of the insanity going on with Straight pride, this is not a chicken-or-the-egg debate vis-à-vis discrimination. In fact, if anyone volunteers to summarize the "SP" incidents section, it'd be great provided that it's not over-American and not amputating. Back to the real issue: who wants to work (with me) on the pride part? I'm going to post the outline I have already in my sandbox. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that looks like an original thesis. In the 1980s there was no straight pride, yet there were still people mobbing me in Brixton, throwing stones and spitting on me. The point of the early pride events was to be visible and thereby reduce the fear of gay people that then existed in society; there was no need for Straight Pride to coordinate the majority opposition. In general, I suggest you consider articles such as the Labor Party (UK) that are not defined by talking endlessly about the Conservative Party. You may find it useful to take another long look at Criticism which the section you are attempting to expand appears to blatantly fail. Thanks -- (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you're confused. SP is directly related to GP. Arguing otherwise supports the SP as a separate article. Btw, the 80's were not free of criticism or counter protests against GP. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please actually read what I wrote. The people throwing stones and spitting at me in the 1980s were not supporters of gay pride. -- (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012[edit]

Please change this paragraph from

"On four occasions, the President of the United States has officially declared a Pride Month. First, President Bill Clinton declared June "Gay & Lesbian Pride Month" on June 2, 2000.[1] Then, in 2009[2], 2010[3], and 2011,[4] President Barack Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."


"On five occasions, the President of the United States has officially declared a Pride Month. First, President Bill Clinton declared June "Gay & Lesbian Pride Month" on June 2, 2000.[5] Then, in 2009[6], 2010[7], 2011,[8], and 2012,[9] President Barack Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

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

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

Done Mdann52 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to history of celebration/activism[edit]

If you insist on using LGBT please list the date(s)this PC terms were added and include the internal resistance to them. I personally find GLBT, LGBT, LGBTQ, etc. offensive. Thanks TherealWade (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request to Christopher Street Liberation Day[edit]

Please remove this image: and this malicious text directly targeting a specific person who is not a celebrity in the photo by full name, without her consent:

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

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

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

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


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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC) 
Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done - It appears that changes has already been made by some other Wikipedia editor. I did not find any search results on the article page for "Christina Antoinette Neofotistou" or parts of it. Well, the image appears to me a copyright violation by the uploader and is now nominated for deletion. Let me know, if I missed something (type {{U|Anupmehra}} in your reply and I'll be notified). Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I was not kidding. I live in the United States and I have no idea how things are in Greece, but I would expect here that if someone where photographed at pride holding a banner in public streets then they might expect to be photographed and possibly named in a picture. It is my misunderstanding that some people see this as harassment. It looks like the picture is nominated for deletion and I will indicate that the picture is asserted to be harassment. There is no need to explain the harassment, but no, I do not see anyone in the picture protesting it being taken. It just looks like people walking down the street holding a banner to me. Wikipedia has thousands of similar pictures, many which say people's names. We do not assume that pictures taken in public with names are harassment because it is unusual if they are. Thanks for speaking up. I did not understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)