Jump to content

Talk:Pride parade/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Minneapolis Pride

I cannot find the evidence to support this claim, but I believe the Minneapolis Pride parade in Minnesota is the third largest in America, behind perhaps San Fran and New York. The newspaper article that said this and what years pride parade it reffers to are long forgotten and probably lost to me forever. But I believe this memory to be true. Our pride parade is pretty unearthly huge up here. Bigger than you might think. Oh hey! I found the article. In my silly little college paper, but still: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/06/29/64723 Just like I remembered. 3rd largest behind San Fran and New York. Beat out Chicago, meaning we're probably the biggest in the midwest, assuming we don't include new york in that. These stats are according to organizers of our pride parade, so you can doubt them, but I like them fine. I still don't know if that means we're "internationally known" or whatever list we've got going here. 66.41.66.213 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

citation needed is not censorship

I don't want to seem unfriendly to this article, and for that reason I am putting this in the talk page:

This doesn't read like good wiki articles read, and conflicts on any issue will be difficult to resolve, because this doesn't have references. Policy states all articles should be referenced. Someone will get on this, I'm sure. 66.41.66.213 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Summer

"Most gay pride parades take place in the summer." For God's sake don't these people know that the world is not just the northern hemisphere? Changed. Oh that's alright to include I believe Jakes. --El Chemaniaco 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Focus or merge

This article's title and lead indicate it should be focused on the Pride parades specifically, however, the bulk of the article covers the subject/history of Gay Pride events generally which has an article already at Gay Pride. I do not dispute that a viable article could be written specifically on the parade itself, but this does not (yet) seem to be it. I suggest those regular editors of this page prune and focus it or considere merging with Gay Pride. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

References to Taiwan on Wikipedia

This was in the Taiwan section. Is this really necessary? "On November 1, 2003 the first gay pride parade in the country of Taiwan (Not a country, but the Republic Of China), was held in Taipei, Taiwan with over 1,000 people attending." Is there a policy about Taiwan/China references on Wikipedia? If not, this sentence is really awkward. Joe056 13:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV (Eastern Europe)?

Article reads "Weak cultural, political and social cooperation exists among these states, with an obvious lack of public encouragement for solidarity, which organizers hoped to initiate through that regional Pride event." So, the unwillingness to organize gay parades means weak social cooperation etc? Many people in these countries (I come from one of them) have nothing against gays, they feel no problems working together with gays and so on, but they oppose artificial promotion of sexual orientation such as pride parades. Other people are just sincere christians and are against gays just because their priest says so. So although I'm not exactly anti-gay myself, I feel this is a really biased conclusion. Can it be backed by any sources or anything, proving that disallowing gay parades automatically says something about the social solidarity of the country/city??? --213.113.65.23 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Stonewall riots were on June 28, not 29

The Stonewall riots took place early in the morning of June 28, 1969, not "Early in the morning of June 29, 1969" as stated at the beginning of this article's History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.112.21 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposition section

"Those who take socially conservative political positions are sometimes opposed to such events because they view them to be indecent and contrary to public morality. This belief is partly based on certain things sometimes found in the parades, such as public nudity, S & M paraphanelia, and other highly sexualized features."

Socially conservatives are against gay marriage. However, it does not state anywhere socially conservatives are against public nudity, S&M, or other sexualized features. Just because people are socially conservative does not mean they do not use S&M in their own home or are against role-playing. Also, how does being socially conservative have to do with public nudity? Do socially conservative people really view parades wrong because of nudity (which doesn't happen that often because of indecent exposure laws), S&M outfits, and other sexual features? It sounds like to me that socially conservative people are against pride parades because they often promote equal rights (gay marriage), which socially conservative people are against. I propose completely rewording this paragraph, unless there are some sources to back it up. -ChristopherMannMcKay 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above has two false arguments. "does not mean they do not use S&M in their own home or are against role-playing" The key phrase is in their home; many are against public sexual acts, however. "nudity (which doesn't happen that often because of indecent exposure laws)" Nudity does, in fact, occur. Metro police departments do not want to get into it with such a politically organized and connected group, especially in cities like SF. Nudity laws go unenforced to a large extent. Ask yourself this: Why have many San Francisco Bay Area TV channels stopped broadcasting the Pride Parade recently? These stations are nominally supportive of the movement, but now fewer show the parade. The answer is offensive comment. That last thought may be arguable, but the drop off in air time is not. Check it out.

Is this about gay pride parades in general or gay pride parades in San Fransico? It seems to me that since social conservatives are against the parades in general even in places where the offensive element does not occur (and the police would be extremely willing to arrest anyone who does break the rules) it's clearly much more complex then that. Also, maybe the San Francisco Bay Area TV channels stopped broadcasting the parade is because they're afraid of upsetting social conservative not because of nudity? Nil Einne 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Given that it has been found the above criticism is "false," please allow me to rephrase. I would suggest, even as simply a pragmatist, that one doesn't go about winning brownie points by offending the majority of the population where you seek a beneficial change. These parades are considered by MANY to be a slap to the face of the "straight" (and by straight, I am not implying the heterosexual community) people. I doubt if any would support a parade for heterosexual sexuality replete with shagging on the floats, or other such parades. Look, I am all for the rights of gays, the same as any other group, but I do believe that the overt vocal expressions ascribed to the movement deserve to at least be subject to criticism. Seriously, we cannot allow such articles to go without revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.114.207 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry all, I didn't realize I needed to sign my edits, but I will in the future. I was on my way to skewer Coulter, but I've had my attention brought back here for the sole purpose of actually pointing out a few things. A) It is not uncommon knowledge that there is significant derision for these parades from BOTH sides of the fence, and B) I firmly believe that journalism has gotten to the point that Wikipedia is perhaps the only non-partisan source out there. I am hoping that someone will actually come to their senses and suggest that censorship (like making a point out of my brief comment, however actually pragmatic - and true, as I live in NYC and am often in the West Village bars). I am simply suggesting that pragmatically these parades are derided as classless and above all, counter-productive to the overall goal, not to mention the actual right-wing criticism. However much one might like, Obama can't say that he'd like to see an economy modeled after Sweeden, as it'd be counter-productive to grabbing the Presidency. I'm not the enemy here. If you ever read Mill you'll realize that the marketplace for ideas is ultimately the way to go. Don't shoot the messenger. Signed - SebastianCraine (AIM)

"People of colour"

The references to "people of colour" need to be sorted. Is it sourced? The NYT article may mention it (I don't have access to it). But moreover, it's an unclear euphemism, which should be clarified. Darimoma (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case it means racial and/or ethnic minorities. I'll add the wikilink which hopefully will resolve the issue. Banjeboi 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pride Parade Lists

I was looking at the Houston Gay Pride Parade article and noticed that the template didn't really seem TOO complete and I was wondering if perhaps a listing on the template, or perhaps a new one, would help people more easily track the parades being specifically for pride. Just a thought. --Hourick (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean? Do you mean the LGBT template should have a better link to a list of pride parades? Banjeboi 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Racist?

The article uses the phrase "people of colour" to describe, I beieve, Black people. Isn't this phrase racist? Idontknow610TM 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

afaik, people of colour/color isn't racist. in the United States "colored" has racist connotations as it was used during segregation. -- User0529 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I don't live in the US and English is not me first language, so I wasn't sure. Thanks. Idontknow610TM 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
But "people of colour" isn't explicit in its meaning. Does it mean black people? Does it mean non-white people? Does it mean colourful characters? This should be explained clearly. And to use the euphemism "people of colour" is just plain weird. Darimoma (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a wikilink that hopefully should resolve this. Stonewall happened in the US and POC is a common activist acronym and phrase embraced by ... people of color. By the way, there are at least 30 Black LGBT pride events in the US that seemingly don't exist so we could start a section just on that as well. Banjeboi 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedophiles on parade

Conservative leaders have sometimes claimed that pride parades often feature pro-pedophile activists that demand the decriminalization of adult-child sex. [1] [2] [3] [4] ADM (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

They claim a lot of things, not sure if that means we should aid them in calling a Pride parade "Pedophiles on parade". -- Banjeboi 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


Belgrade Roits

Official numbers of the Ministry of Interior indicate that there were 6000 protestors, not "tens of thousands" as claimed in the main article. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=10&dd=11&nav_id=70208 October 11th, 2010 (by BoBo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.60.228.114 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other viewpoint needed

Many, especially those with social conservative viewpoints, consider gay pride parades to be offensive. Can we not mention this on this page? Do these viewpoints suddenly "not exist"? --Jakes18 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some hardline Protestant Loyalists in Northern Ireland and Glasgow are offended by St. Patrick's Day parades but would you expect to find that find that mentioned on the Wikipedia article for St Patrick's Day? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

I was puzzled to see the UK not mentioned in this article, especially considering the Pride London article. Anyone care to add it in? --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Russia

This entry needs to be updated to reflect the recently enacted Russian law outlawing nationally all pro-gay advocacy or teaching children anything about homosexuality. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In case it might be helpful, here's a link to the story in Boston's gay newspaper: http://www.baywindows.com/Russias-Putin-signs-anti-gay-measures-into-law Dick Kimball (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Uganda

The "Kill the Gays Bill" is now law in Uganda. One of the fundamentalists behind it, Scott Lively, is now being sued in US federal court over the issue. Here's a link to one news item about the case: http://www.baywindows.com/Federal-Court-hears-persecution-case-against-Scott-Lively Dick Kimball (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

France

Here's a list of other pride parades copied from the web page for Nice's 2013 parade:[1]

Nancy - 1er juin
Lille - 1er juin
Montpellier - 1er juin
Auxerre - 1er juin
Angers - 22 juin
Tours - 25 mai
Bordeaux - 8 juin
Rennes - 8 juin
Biarritz - 22 juin
Lyon - 15 juin
Metz - 15 juin
Rouen - 22 juin
Arras - 15 juin
Nantes - 15 juin
Strasbourg - 15 juin
Toulouse - 15 juin
Paris - 29 juin
Caen - 22 juin
Marseille - 20 juillet
Le Mans - 6 juillet

Dick Kimball (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.gaypride.fr/spip.php?article711

Should Category:Pride parades be a subcategory to Protest marches?

Currently it isn't, it is a subcat to Category:Marches. But aren't pride parades in part protest marches, protesting against discrimination of specific groups? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, in fact, some people, both marchers and viewers, regard "Pride parades" as "protest", but to me they seem primarily like the original New York St. Paddy's day parades (before they were institutionalized) and the early 1930s Nazi parades, saying "We are here, we have numbers, we have power!" In other words, taking them at face value. The pink ribbon breast cancer marches and the like can also be similarly viewed as protest marches; however, any expression of political or social power can viewed as "protest", so we should be careful of spreading a category too broadly (and too thinly) and reducing its usefulness. Instead, I would suggest that the leader (header) for the general Category:Protests include a "See also" to Category:Marches, and vice versa. Which suggests that Category:Protest marches be narrowly construed to those that have specific, stated protest goals. I would suggest modifying the leader to Category:Protest marches to make that clearer. --Bejnar (talk)


I IMHO, I dislike the thought of considering Pride Parades being gerneralised as protest marches. Akin to Pride Parades, New Zealand has a history of Hero Parades. The annual LGBTI festival and parade were/are in NZ named as Hero instead of the using the Prde moniker for reasons I can't remember, but Hero has now become traditional. Hero was always celebratory rather than protesting. Perhaps this is the difference between a parade and a march.
Nevertheless, while I agree there are many dark corners of this world where the march has had to be protesting rather than celebratory, the comment above (viz UK London Pride) is a classic example of where Pride marches per se are both, depending on the environment in which they take place. Indeed, as we see in Russia, they can go from Celebratory to Protesting within a single presidential term.
So, I feel lumping all Pride marches into protest catagories is over-generalising. They have a uniqueness which is very much environmentally dictated.
Is it that we need to diffferentiate marches from parades? L-Bit (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange division of the World

Strange to see that the Netherlands is considered a continent just like Asia or Europe, and that Uganda and South Africa seem to be part of this "Netherlands continent". The division should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.130.132 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Studies on sexuality and space" section

What is that about? Has been added in 2012 by an editor and hasn't changed since. There's not a single source, and I'm not sure if it's a joke or just a badly written jargon-filled essay. A few lines to illustrate:

Pride Parade has been seen as an opportunity to celebrate homosexuality and challenge hetero normative space. Space is actually neutral, however it has been actively produced by society to be hetero normative. This can act as a societal constraint for gay communities as it creates a notion of being 'other' and different. Once occupied by homosexual individuals however, the space becomes fluid rather than static and subject to the sexualities acting upon it. Not everyone who is queer will act on 'straight' spaces in the same way. Some individuals may believe that assimilating with such heteronormative spaces will allow for progress - these are known as assimilationalists, and while they maintain their queer identity they do not allow it to exclude them from society.

I would simply remove the whole section, but in my experience such bold edits are usually reverted... Ssscienccce (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And almost two years later, it's still unsourced. I was about to tag it as such, but because it has other major problems (which you alluded to) I thought removal was indicated. Checking the talk page, I found this thread. I'm removing the section now as generally unencyclopedic original research and am copying it below, for easy reference, in the unlikely event anyone might want to rewrite and source it. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Link to "Portland Pride" goes to the Wikipedia article about a soccer team named Portland Pride

67.42.233.251 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! RivertorchFIREWATER 16:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposition translation gobbledygook

See also section #Opposition section above.
I'm not sure what the following sentence in section Opposition is supposed to mean:

A number of associations and social movements have been denouncing in recent years which, in its views, is a depletion of the claims of these demonstrations and the merchandization of the parade. In this respect, they defend, in countries like Spain, USA or Canada, a Critical Pride celebration to have a political meaning again.[144][145][146][147]

As someone who works a lot in translation, and have seen my share of machine-translated gobbledygook, that's what this looks like to me. Presumably the references are not gobbledygook, and they could be used to recast this sentence into something which makes sense.

With that reference to Spain in the list of countries, I would head first to that section in the Spanish article, to see if that could be the origin of some poorly translated material; if it is, there may be a second issue here, in that WP:CWW requires a statement of attribution, and there had better be one in the rev history somewhere, when this material was added, regardless if the translation makes any sense or not. (This is a legal requirement, and not a Wikipedia guideline, which is merely a strong community recommendation.) Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as I thought: this first paragraph (and maybe the whole section, I haven't checked) is just a crap automatic translation straight out of the Spanish article. Here is a correct translation:

In the last few years, various associations and social movement groups in countries like Spain have been denouncing that which, in their judgment, is an abdication of the legitimate claims of these groups and the "commercialization" of Pride day. Accordingly, they advocate the celebration of an "Alternative Pride" (Spanish: Orgullo Crítico) which is not limited to a mere "commercial facade".

I'll tag the article as a partial machine translation and list it at WP:PNT where hopefully it will get some more eyeballs by Spanish speakers. In the gobbledygook translation above, whoever was responsible must've stuck "USA or Canada" in there by pulling it out of a hat, because the original doesn't say that. To my knowledge, "Alternative Pride" was strictly a 2015 Madrid event: although I've heard a lot of opinions and grumbling about the commercialization of Pride in North America, there's no anti-commercial or back-to-the-roots "Alternative Pride" celebrations in Canada or the U.S. that I'm aware of, but I might've missed the news about that. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The gobbledygook was added in revision 727498870 of 11:13, June 29, 2016 by DaddyCell (talk · contribs). They made no other edits to the article. The original section in the Spanish article goes on for a couple of pages, but the user only translated the first two sentences. As there is no follow-up and it sort of just hangs there without any context, I'd vote for just removing it based on WP:UNDUE, unless similar "Alt" Prides have occurred somewhere else besides Madrid in 2015. Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There were "competing" events in some US cities this past June, principally over local Pride committees' acceptance of certain corporate funding but also because a growing number of people believed that Pride should be more protest than party with the community under attack. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. I'd second your vote for removal. With a complete rewrite and decent sourcing, it could be re-added later. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Rivertorch for your thoughts, and that info; wasn't aware of it. Will wait a decent interval for others to weigh in, then remove if no further comments, and agree it could be put back with sourcing. (Or feel free to delete on your own, I sometimes forget to come back; wish there were a way to {{ping}} "future me" in a week or two...) Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It's the story of my life around here. {Maybe I should start setting WP-related reminders on my phone?) I've pared the offending text down, removing the second sentence entirely and editing the first one so that it's at least grammatical. I've left the Spanish-language source in place for the moment, but honestly, the sentence that now precedes it should be pretty easy to source (and expand). I could do it today...but the watchlist is long and the time is short. Pinging Mathglot lest they forget RivertorchFIREWATER 17:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pride parade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of all caps

@Mathglot: referring to this reversion, there is no such standard that text in all caps found in printed materials should be kept as such in articles. The MOS explicitly says otherwise in the first bullet of MOS:ALLCAPS, so it should be reduced to title case. Rhinopias (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: Does not apply here. The link you refer to says, Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required..., and:
  • this is not a newspaper headline, nor a title;
  • THE QUOTATION REFERRED TO IS NOT IN "ALL-CAPS: THIS IS WHAT ALL-CAPS LOOKS LIKE.
Hth, Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right – it's not a newspaper headline, nor a title. Thanks for the demonstration, but CHRISTOPHER STREET LIBERATION DAY is "all caps"… all caps means the letters are all capitalized, it does not require an entire quotation or some subjective amount of all capital letters. Let's try the last bullet of the first list of MOS:ALLCAPS:
Do not write with all capitals for emphasis; italics are preferred (see § Do not use for emphasis, above). In quoted material, all caps or small caps for emphasis can be replaced with {{strong}} (or HTML <strong>); see WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting § STRONG.
Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The MOS is advising on our emphasis, not someone else's. As a direct quote, this is someone else's emphasis, and it would be inappropriate to alter it. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the latter part of the bullet in my last comment (which I bolded) not advising on emphasis in quoted material? Rhinopias (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You correctly emphasized material that was not emphasized in the original by using <strong> (not all-caps) to emphasize it. However, per WP:QUOTE#Formatting, you should have indicated your change of style from the original, by adding [emphasis added] after the period.
As Rivertorch pointed out, the Manual of style is for Wikipedia editors, to let us know how to emphasize something in Wikipedia's voice, and other style questions, it's not about how to alter quoted material, with certain exceptions. Bullet 5 of MOS:CONFORM might lend weight to your argument, depending on how one interprets "all caps" in that sentence. If you interpret it to mean that it applies to fragments of a quotation (rather than the whole thing) then you could remove the caps and replace them with italics. Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias:: I did misread the passage you quoted from MOS. Sorry about that. Here's a question, though: why do the all caps bother you? To me, they seem reasonably unobtrusive and quite appropriate for the context. If it were 40 words, or even 14, I think a good case could be made that they're graphically ugly and distracting and taking up too much room, but they're only 4 words. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, because I am truly under the impression that capital letters used for any emphasis ("stylistic", as worded in ALLCAPS) is strongly discouraged, as I have witnessed many instances of all caps (whether one word or a long title) snuffed out by experienced editors and have had this set of guidelines thrown at me multiple times (which is why my edit summary was simply "rm CAPS"). I see the context of why it's in capital letters, but it's distracting and shout-y. I think that bold would be appropriate here, following ALLCAPS and MOS:NOBOLD, as italics would be less obvious and the source is obviously focusing on the name heavily. But whether or not this phrase meets a subjective threshold of obtrusiveness, capital letters for stylistic reasons are explicitly discouraged in the MOS, in direct quotations or not. MOS:CONFORM most definitely applies to this as the capitalization is stylistic in nature; it is not included in the list of exceptions under ALLCAPS (such as acronyms, in which making the text lowercase would change its meaning). This use of capital letters for just one word is considered "all capitals" by the MOS, as given in its example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Do not use for emphasis.
I'm not interested in going back and forth about this more, because I don't believe this discussion is worth our energy. The two of you are more familiar with the article so I'll leave it in your hands. I just saw this in passing and that's the one thing in the article that immediately grabbed my attention. (Which indicates to me it's interfering. ) Rhinopias (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If we agree that that applies, then it should be changed to italics. If you do so, please add an edit summary quoting MOS:CONFORM point 5. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's one of those agree-to-disagree moments, and I agree it's not worth (much) further energy. If you change it, I won't object, but I personally find it more elegant than shout-y. One of the reasons I entered the conversation is because I am always concerned when MOS assumes a sort of infallible quality. It's a set of guidelines that should usually be followed—no more, no less. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Page should be ‘Pride parade’ not ‘Gay pride parade’

Part of the concept of Pride from the start has been inclusiveness, and as such, they do not specify ‘gay’, other than a few smaller and newer ones. The addition of the tag ‘Gay’ to it was about marginalization.

Pride comes out of the gay community but is not restricted to it.

Yes, but the point of these parades is pride in the LGBT area, not just overall pride. You don't see white people standing on floats saying white pride, or black people standing on floats saying black pride, etc. It could, perhaps, be changed to LGBT Pride Parade, but just saying pride parade would be incorrect. Pride is not exclusive to the LGBT community, whereas the pride referenced in these parades is. Sure, people who are not part of the LGBT community can show support, but it's still pride in LGBT all the same. Besides, most people refer to them and know them as gay pride parades, so enough of this PC bullshit. It's a gay pride parade, or LGBT pride parade, that's it. Include them all you want, but a bunch of dudes in tight revealing leather parading down the streets on a float do not represent pride as a whole. Sandwiches99 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a Straight Pride Parade in Boston. This should be included. 2605:A000:1E02:C05D:CC81:6D87:C62E:247 (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Enhanced" is not neutral

"In New York City, the Stonewall 50 - WorldPride NYC 2019 events produced by Heritage of Pride will be enhanced through a partnership made with the I ❤ NY program's LGBT division" - this is not encyclopedic but marketing. Also the usage of the actual heart-character in accordance with the logo of a marketing campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:96BF:B663:9D4:11B0:B627:7DCE (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Studies on sexuality and space

In the geographic discipline, there has been an increased, but still limited, focus on 'sexuality and space' since the 1970s. 'Queer Theory' is slightly more recent and has been seen as a post structuralist response to the gay and lesbian studies contemplated in works of 'sexuality and space'. Emerging during the cultural turn of the 1990s, 'Queer Theory' set to deconstruct what had previously been thought of as 'universal truths' within the identity markers of sexuality, and provide a critique of hetero-normative society. It is within this queer studies sub discipline that many academic pieces have been produced to analyze the theoretics which underpin events such as Pride Parade, dealing with concepts of assimilation, intersectionality and the role of sexuality in shaping space.

Pride Parade has been seen as an opportunity to celebrate homosexuality and challenge heteronormative space. Space is actually neutral, however it has been actively produced by society to be hetero normative. This can act as a societal constraint for gay communities as it creates a notion of being 'other' and different. Once occupied by homosexual individuals however, the space becomes fluid rather than static and subject to the sexualities acting upon it. Not everyone who is queer will act on 'straight' spaces in the same way. Some individuals may believe that assimilating with such heteronormative spaces will allow for progress - these are known as assimilationalists, and while they maintain their queer identity they do not allow it to exclude them from society. Liberationalists are considered to be individuals or communities who, once settled in a new place are unlikely to assimilate with others outside of their sub-sect - they are happy to maintain a certain degree of non-assimilation. Such different approaches show the role of intersectionality in sexuality studies.

Many of the early studies of 'sexuality and space' took an essentialist viewpoint whereby individuals within one social grouping are assumed to possess similar, if not the same, identities. A generalization as such is dangerous, as by focusing on just one identity marker, all other markers are considered less important and therefore erased. Intersectionality counters this - it instead recognizes that an individual identity is a culmination of many different markers, and neither one should be privileged above the others. In the case of sexuality, Nash and Bain (2007) conducted studies in Toronto which highlighted divisions and contestations within the lesbian community which had previously been thought of as an essentialism group. Pride Parade is a more obvious expression of such intersectionalities. Certain types of LGBT individuals or groups may dominate the event, whilst other queer bodies appear marginalised, depending on where the parade takes place. As Johnston (2007) argues, parades are an expression of collectivities which may homogenise the experience whilst excluding those who don't conform the expected norms. With the rise of post-structuralism, more studies now consider intersectionality and adopt anti-essentialist perspectives. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Pride Parade vs Pride March when referring to 1970

Currently this page includes "On November 2, 1969, Craig Rodwell, his partner Fred Sargeant, Ellen Broidy, and Linda Rhodes proposed the first gay pride parade..." THE SPECIFIC WORDS THAT FOLLOW REFER TO FORMING DEMONSTRATIONS. A "March" is a 'Demonstration'. A 'Parade' is usually a cultural event. SHOULD wiki not change the word I have highlighted with BOLD font above from parade to march. I understand today's confusion when a city issues a parade permit for what organizers consider a march, but in 1970 wasn't the intent of these demonstrations to hold Marches for liberation? IF YOU AGREE, please make the appropriate changes. I'm still new here and would rather my suggestions are reviewed before editing as this is a pivotal page. Thanks in advance PhilEdits (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THE ARTICLE... I'm NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT'S CONFUSING SWITCH FROM MARCH TO PARADE AND BACK.

In the paragraph before the November 2nd Proclamation the article uses the term parade as the subject mater. In the paragraph directly after the Proclamation it continues the thought "All attendees to the ERCHO meeting in Philadelphia voted for the march..." I think I am correct in putting forth that the 1970 DEMONSTRATION in NEW YORK CITY was a MARCH not a Parade. In Los Angeles, we see it was officially issued a Parade Permit which facilitated their holding a March. I know that in 2018 NYC issues a Parade Permit, but the organization still considers it to be a March and the local media outlets discuss this topic. March permits do not really exist. WAS THE 1970 NYC demonstration issued a permit by the city at all, or did people just take to the streets? IDK. But I can see that wiki is not as consistent as it should be in this exact situation (surrounding the words from the scrolls of November 2's meeting).PhilEdits (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think this is a big deal. Parade has connotations that march lacks, and vice versa, but they're both apt in this context. For the most part, Pride events were—and still are—both celebrations and protests. The ratio of one to the other has shifted over the years, especially in the First World, but there's still a protest component now and there generally was a celebratory component even in the early days. So I don't think it's inaccurate to use either word in most contexts in the article, but as Mathglot noted in an edit summary recently, it's best to stick with what the sources say. RivertorchFIREWATER 09:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not much bothered with parade vs march, but it was definitely not called "pride"-anything in 1970. The word pride was not added till quite a bit later, maybe the late eighties or so. So if the article says that somebody "proposed a gay pride <anything>", that should be changed. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User edit-warring to change top image and Infobox

This article has long held an image of a large pride parade as the first image of the article, which is only reasonable, since that's what the "Pride parade" article is about. The image has been there for at least a year. However recently, an editor has been edit warring to remove the image of the Pride parade at the top, and replace it with an image of the Stonewall Inn instead, pushing the Pride parade image further down.

I first noticed this on 25 August, here, with the edit summary, "Consistency", which I don't understand. After I reverted to restore the image of the large Pride parade to the top, the editor again removed the image of the pride parade the next day in this edit, with the mystifying edit summary "restoring consensus to comport; I have no problem with changing the image order". I reverted again, requesting that they observe WP:BRD and come here to the Talk page to discuss their desired changes but so far, that hasn't happened. Instead, they reverted a third time, saying "restoring updated consensus to include all major LGBT topics under the same umbrella" which makes no sense. As a secondary issue, each time they reverted, they also removed the existing Infobox template, and replaced it with one called Template:Infobox chinese, which makes no sense either.

User:Castncoot, I'm asking that you respect WP:EDITCONSENSUS due to the fact that the top image of this article has been an image of a Pride Parade for a long time. You made a bold edit to change it to a different image, and were reverted. According to the BRD guideline, the burden is now on you to get consensus for the changes you wish to make to the top image (and to the Infobox). Instead of edit warring to enforce your desired content change, please discuss it here instead. In the meantime, while we're discussing, please revert your last change, and put the Infobox and top image back the way they were, until this has been discussed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect Mathglot, that logic really doesn't make sense, nor does it comport with Wikipedia P/G. The most pertinent and updated WP:CONSENSUS is to unite the primary LGBT topics under the same umbrella, to speak with one voice. In fact, I actually had to add this article to the LGBT sidebar, because incredibly, it wasn't even there. Infobox Chinese is simply a generic template that covers a wide range of articles. Also, the picture you see was part of an LGBT pride parade event. Just not the one you want to remain apparently indefinitely. The WP:BURDEN is now yours to revert the primary consensus. Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Castncoot:, I have no idea what "logic" you are talking about. The consensus on this article up to this point is clear: the top picture has been a picture of a Pride parade for over a year, until you came along and changed it. You've insisted on your change three times: here, here, and here. That's not how we do things around here; please read WP:BRD and stop just insisting on your way. You may be able to gain consensus for your choice of image by starting an Rfc, or by other means. Talk it out, first. I'm returning the top image to its long-standing consensus. I don't care what image it gets changed to, as long as it's a consensus choice. Please do not revert again, without gaining consensus for your desired change. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I give up here. You just don't seem to get it- or maybe I'm just not able to explain it to you correctly. Castncoot (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that an image of a large-scale pride parade – a crowd in varied clothes filling a large street, optimally with some float or stage shown – should be at the top of the page. The 2014 São Paulo image seems to work well for this. The Stonewall Inn image being at the top of the Background section seems to work well as well. The LGBT sidebar shouldn't be much of an issue with regards to which image is on the top of the page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikaylatapia. Peer reviewers: Rachelescobedo16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Description

The description section is largely unsourced. Make sure claims made have proper reliable sources or considering removing them. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:C505:31D7:EF24:99C7 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Overally US centric history

This page seems to have become very heavily US centric. For example there's no reference to Londons first Pride march in 1972, this was once on the page. Followed by Brighton in 1973. London had been trying to have a pride march for a few years, but the police had banned them, this predates the stonewall riots. Brighton had Pride marches on Sussex universities campus in the 60s to support the decriminlisation of homosexuality in 1967. sailor iain (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makailanava01 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Candychill.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pride_parade/Archive_1&oldid=1245211301"