Talk:Straight pride

Notability

Regarding notability, I was able to identify the following references (sorry about the rotten formatting job):
Members of the Youth for Western Civilization chapter at Washington State have created a stir on campus by supporting traditional marriage and what the president of the group calls "Straight Pride"
"Straight Pride" movement a joke (LGBT blog, but clipping from WSU "Daily Evergreen"
"Michigan Messenger also reported this year on the appearance of a small straight pride movement rearing its head in Michigan." (LGBT online magazine PrideSource)
Sao Pauolo (Brazil) Straight Pride day
Fox News - Chicago High School Uses 'Straight Pride' Shirts for Rights Education
NYT article: " ... An antihomosexual rall by a student group at the University of Massachusetts to show what demonstrators called straight pride has touched off heated exchanges ..."

My gut feeling is that "Straight Pride" (like other pride movements) is unorganized and that membership is self-identified. I don't know how one might go about identifying an agenda for a group so composed. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone

From the lede: " ... Similar to the concept of white pride, straight pride is meant by proponents to insinuate the existence of double standards which allow for the celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride, and that too many special rights and privileges have been accorded to LGBT people ..." Linking "straight pride" and "white pride" is overly suggestive. I think that a better sentence - and less leading - might be, "'Straight Pride' is an explicit response to the rise of the "Gay Pride" movement." I'm not sure where else this might go, as the "movement" seems to be unorganized, unaffiliated, leaderless, and largely reactive in nature. The Sao Paulo straight pride parade (linked here) seems to be the only one even proposed. Perhaps this could be reasonably merged with another article? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's commonly an extremist or homophobic response to Gay Pride and i've never heard of a real Straight Pride march as it's usually just a homophobic response followed by "It'll be compulsory to be gay soon".

What about a merge with Gay Pride since it's a fringe idea based off that?

Thanks Jenova20 11:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No. – Lionel ^(talk) 12:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'll propose a merge. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 Jenova20 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: 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 latter, or maybe in the article on Homophobia. Even then, it deserves no more than a very brief mention, at best. A "Straight Pride" movement does not exist in either the political, social, religious or philosophical sense of the word. Trying to combine disjointed, minuscule and sporadic protests (or rather, mostly proposed-but-never-executed protests) against Gay Pride events 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. Right now, the article has been pruned back to a single item, a very recent and minimally notable, if that, proposal by some city alderman from Sao Paolo to name a day "Straight Pride Day", solely as a sign of opposition to LGBT rights. That's far too little content for an independent article, and I cannot envision the article being expanded using reliable independent sources in a way that does not violate WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. Google hits are trivial or non-notable mentions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:50, 13 March 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 10:46, 15 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, Anupam^Talk 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. Jenova20 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. Jenova20 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)

Off topic discussion

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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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) "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) 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 Jenova20 09:30, 21 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. Worm^TT · (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 Worm^TT · (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 Jenova20 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. Worm^TT · (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. Jenova20 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. Worm^TT · (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. Jenova20 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. Worm^TT · (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. Worm^TT · (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. Worm^TT · (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 Jenova20 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The nerve of some people. Jenova, here [7] 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)

Yes, that's right. The only project to start an edit war was?...Yep, a religious one. Jenova20 18:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - nuff note for a stand alone. - Youreallycan 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)

So-called "overhaul" of article

On March 14 CJ Withers !voted to Merge and he stated they would "volunteer to complete the merges." Well today they reorganized the article, trimmed it, added their own POV, and here [8] they admit to editing the article in an attempt to prepare it for a merge. They wrote, "I just rehauled the stub so that it can be merged in its entirety."

This is outrageous. The discussion is decidedly against the merge. His edit has made the article incomprehensible and the sectioning is atypical of the way we layout articles. CJ Withers actions are counterproductive and unhelpful. To rewrite the article as if it is part of another article means stripping away important background information and context. This article is not going to be merged. Now it is our job to improve and expand Straight Pride!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the editors opposing the merge has given any policy justification against it, not have they produced even the slightest hint of reliable sources that the concept even exists. Consensus is not a head count. Your changes were highly POV and non-constructive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Adding quotes from event sponsors is fully within policy. Do not move reliably sourced content. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But all that does is show their reasoning for the event, not what the event is - a movement, a peaceful protest, or a gay witch-hunt.

I did already warn that your side was doing nothing but voting and all you've done since is get more votes, no policies, nothing.

You Cannot create a movement from a few incidents that some references considered homophobic and this entire idea you are creating is as has already been said: WP:Synthesis WP:OR WP:POV to name a few. You can't tie incidents together to create a movement. Thanks Jenova20 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alternate; as this is a related but separate subject perhaps both "Gay pride" & "Straight pride" and all such "X pride" articles should be covered under a Pride article, with appropriate sub-articles be created when the main article becomes too large. Such an article of course should adhere to WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no. When the majority of the information is about Gay Pride and there is a very limited attempt to create a Straight Pride it would be both very unfair and almost advertising to give both equal weight to then promote the other article as an equal.

I doubt you would find many on the Gay Pride article who would agree either as it would be like creating an article on food and deleting hundreds of other articles on varied and different types. As it is, Gay Pride is notable, but Straight Pride is still being argued about either merge, keep or delete. Thanks Jenova20 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Gay Pride article actually needs a lot of work. There's a few sources which discuss "Pride" as a concept and as a stage of coming out, where actions which were previously considered outrageous are not commonplace. There's no way that article would be able to fit into Pride. I'm not sure that this article would fit in that one either. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Same reason a lot of article on countries aren't featured or even good articles, lost of patriotic and interested editors but too many things to add and everyone fighting over what's notable and what's more important. There's also the trolls and vandals and other articles linking to them that slow things down. That's what i think it is anyway. And a Pride article is a terrible idea as it would sanitize a lot of articles to fit them all in, eg: Irish Pride would be included. Thanks Jenova20 08:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WPConservatism

Hmmmm... looks like the groups who hold "Straight Pride Days" on college campuses are conservative. So is the organization in Brazil sponsoring their "Straight Pride Day." Seems that this event is promulgated by conservative groups. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you add at least one reliable source that explicitly connects the two? We generally don't want editors making that connection. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Found these with little effort: [9] [10]

“ We're here, we're conservative, we're out ”

More where those came from... – Lionel ^(talk) 05:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When we use reliable sources to support our content, we start off by using them unambiguously and explicitly. Later, when we are dealing with non-controversial statements, we have a bit more leeway depending on significance, context, and whether it is of an uncontroversial nature. When we are dealing with controversial topics, it is of utmost importance that we deal with reliable sources in an explicit manner. The sources you cite show a reaction to gay pride events by college groups, one of which is considered fringe. You may want to change your oppose to "support" since you have cited sources supporting the rationale for the merge. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, Viriditas. I was about to say that "Straight Pride" seems conservative (reactionary) by definition and is espoused by various college republican groups and so on, but then I thought better of it as that would be synthesis. I wonder if the peace movement of the sixties might serve to help guide editors of this article. Poorly-defined, largely reactionary, lacking coherent structure and leadership, the movement nonetheless existed. Much wider in scope and more popular, obviously, but the two movements share some characteristics. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt's source says that a group organizing one of these events calls itself conservative. We cannot spin that into "this is a conservative movement". In fact it does not appear to be a movement at all, merely a new campaign by existing right-wing groups. TFD (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely. There's not enough for an article so i think he's trying to tie it directly to his Wikiproject. It's as already noted: WP:OR WP:Synthesis WP:POV

Thanks Jenova20 18:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Before people get carried away with putting words in my mouth: I never said it was "conservative" nor did I say it was a "movement". – Lionel ^(talk) 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This current section i am writing in was created by you trying to link conservatives and Straight Pride and this "Poorly-defined, largely reactionary, lacking coherent structure and leadership, the movement nonetheless existed." is a quote from this section also where you clearly refer to it as a movement.

You make it very difficult to assume Good Faith towards you when you do not play by the same rules as everyone else Lionelt and are somehow able to refute allegations that you made in the first place. Thanks Jenova20 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"where you clearly refer to it as a movement": are you deranged? I did no such thing. Stop making up lies. You are in clear violation of WP:TPNO. "Do not misrepresent other people" Give me a diff or get ready to get your ass dragged to ANI.– Lionel ^(talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Harper v. Poway Unified School District

The short section on Harper v. Poway Unified School District doesn't make clear what the case had to do with "Straight pride"; it mentions that the school had previously had a "Straight pride" day, but the school had also previously had lots of things (fire drills, lunches, whatever); unless there's a visible connection between the case and the slogan "straight pride", it should be deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I put it in because it was one case of "Straight pride" which ended up going to court, but then again the court case was tangential to the Straight pride event, so I wouldn't object to it's removal. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Double standard

I've removed the phrase "double standard" - which is incorrect and doesn't match the sources I have. Or rather, it doesn't match the higher quality sources - there are a few right wing sources which do talk about a double standard. The relevent quotes from the texts I have found are

Not surprisingly, individual in the pride stage are most criticized by heterosexual persons but also many LGBT individuals, who are uncomfortable forcing the majority to share the discomfort. Heterosexual individuals may express bewilderment at the term "gay pride", arguing that they do not talk about "straight pride," whereas some LGBT people urge their more visible counterparts to try to blend in and "act normal".

— Eliason, Michael; Schope, Robert (2007), Shifting Sands or Solid Foundation? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Identity Formation

One of the most common skinhead tactics is to attempt to establish a “White student union.” This method was pioneered in the 1980s by the Klan in the east and WAR in the west as simply an issue of equality. There is a Black prom queen; there should be a White prom queen. There is an Asian student union; there should be a European student union. There are gay pride stickers; there should be straight pride stickers. There is a Hispanic heritage week; there should be a European heritage week, and so on. The concept of the White student union appeals to the adolescent’s need for fairness and balance. Without an understanding of cultural history, in which power has been slanted in the direction of straight, White males, the concept seems just. This is enhanced by the switch to the multicultural curriculum, which further removes the voice of the weakening hegemony

— Blazak, R. (1 February 2001), White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads

Which both talk around reason behind the straight pride discussions, the only sources which specifically discuss a double standard are "Christian newspapers", or other politically motivated sources. As such, I've removed the double standard text. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly fair reasoning.

From what i have so far there's been 2 alleged double standards in this article:

• Double standard that LGBT enjoy better rights in law - this one tends to be used for everything lately when the only real privilege is hate crime laws that also protect the disabled and other minorities. Pretty much what the Human Rights act does ayway.
• Double standard that there can't be a Straight Pride when there's a gay pride. - We've gone into this a few times so i won't elaborate.

Thanks for your involvement WormTT. Jenova20 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reworded a section of the main para from this:

• ""Straight pride" is a form of conservative backlash as there is no straight or heterosexual civil rights movement. Isolated and unrelated, the relatively few "Straight Pride" incidents have, however, gained some media attention."

To this:

• "Straight pride" is a form of conservative backlash as there is no straight or heterosexual civil rights movement as no heterosexual legal inequality exists. Isolated and unrelated, the relatively few and controversial "Straight Pride" incidents have, however, gained some media attention."

Is that not neutral?

For the last part i would certainly say these protests are controversial as the wording and references in the article say themselves. Thanks i advance of any response Jenova20 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The last part is neutral; it is the 'legal inequality' bit that isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)