Talk:Straight pride

I think this should be classified as a hate group.

I think this should be classified as a hate group. 75.176.76.67 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of classifying groups as hate groups (or as anything else). If reliable sources describe this group as a hate group, it can be reflected in the Wikipedia article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...or even anything that describes it as a "group". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed here. AdylmanW (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hetero Awesome Fest

If there's ever interest in forking out Hetero Awesome Fest, feel free to start expanding from this draft. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that that article was deleted due to a deletion discussion, in which a "merge" was not supported. As such, attempting to place the entire article in this one is inappropriate. I have started to trim down what was there, but further trimming should be done. Also noting that when you copy-paste from another article (in this case Draft:Hetero Awesome Fest), you should list that article in your edit summary in order to properly maintain attribution, required by the licenses that Wikipedia works under; I have done a minor edit with a statement of the copying in order for it to be listed in the edit history. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I deleted the statement about a counter-event, and in my summary said I deleted it in part because of WP:RSML concerns... which was an inappropriate concern, as I should've realized that the source contained the original broadcast version as well as the AI-generated text version. However, the removal is still appropriate. Not only was the event one done by/at a single business rather than the "LGBTQ community", but even the report stated it as being done about "events like" the Festival, rather than a specific response to the festival itself (and indeed, the flyer that they showed indicated that the event was titles "What about Straight Pride Month".) As such, it didn't seem directly on the mark for that section, just a gay bar having a drag show during. Pride. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Hetero Awesome Fest (before it was redirected to Straight pride): "Dozens of people attended". Clearly a major event. 😆 Bishonen | tålk 13:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Russian Straight Pride?

Should the flag/movement in Russia back in 2015 be mentioned here? This article mostly talks about individual movements, but it was still a big push for straight pride as a concept. Here's an article in case people don't know what I am talking about. I'm on the fence and also simply am not educated enough on the topic to write a section about it. Gordonthefreedman (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this BBC article on Russian Straight Pride from 2015: [[1]] I think it would be useful to have a section about international straight pride events to expand and diversify the article--are there any others besides Russia? Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reactionary

Hi @Speederzzz:, saying something is (as the lead puts it) a reaction by social conservatives to something else is not the same as saying it is reactionary. Reactionary is a specific label, and a contentious one at that. As reactionary notes, "To some writers, the term reactionary carries negative connotations—Peter King observed that it is "an unsought-for label, used as a torment rather than a badge of honor."" This is exactly what MOS:LABEL was written for, value-laden, contentious labels, and it requires attribution and strong sourcing. As is, the sources in the article are awful and cannot justify this being in wikivoice, let alone attributed. ~2026-17456-49 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One can say that, but when it is very much part of a reactionary movement (See the part about the KKK, White aryan resistance and Christian nationalism), it becomes almost whitewashing. If you wish to bring in more veteran editors, I am fine with this, but we cannot remove these things because it could offend someone to whom it does apply.
If you have problems with the other sources, I'm sure we could collaborate on finding better sources and improving the wording of the text.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would agree that it is inappropriate to define a belief by the views of its most extreme adherents, and avoiding that isn't whitewashing. It's also not our job to try to find labels we think most appropriate, we should be following reliable sources on this, and when it is something value-laden and contentious like this we should be attributing it.
Other sources that jump out to me immediately as inappropriate include the ones verifying "[Heterosexual pride parades] are widely described as a backlash tactic rather than a grassroots movement": an op-ed and a 1990s primary report by a government committee that is writing from the perspective of "protecting LGBTQ people".
@DanielRigal: you are an experienced editor. Why do you think MOS:LABEL (Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution) does not apply here, and why do you think a student newspaper, writing from an explicitly POV perspective, is sufficient to put a contentious, value-laden label in wikivoice, without attribution? ~2026-17456-49 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Wikilawyering. This does not seem a contentious description. Some might even say that it is an obvious one. Have you even looked for a better source? There's plenty in Google Scholar.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
--DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of Wikilawyering is an unnecessary escalation when I have already provided an RS that this is a value-laden term which MOS:LABEL describes as best avoided in wikivoice. Your Find sources search is telling - you should be looking at reliable sources on Straight Pride and then looking at how they describe the concept, not starting with a descriptor and then searching for sources which justify it. This is WP:CARTBEFORESOURCE. ~2026-17456-49 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just weighing in here. The word "reactionary" is not in the body of the article, which shouldn't happen per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. In addition, the source [2] for the term 'reactionary' is a student newspaper. Surely we should be using better WP:RS here. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree that it should be in the body as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current source in the lead is not good. And Zenomonoz is correct. I looked up a few sources that do describe straight pride as reactionary though:
EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more source ([3]) but to be honest it appears to me that sources more often call it backlash than reactionary. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an either-or situation. We could, and I think should, say both. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently handles backlash as "political response" which seems to me a more neutral descriptor than the emotive "backlash". Daniel has it right that we can use both, though I must maintain that any value-laden descriptors are attributed. ~2026-17456-49 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with Scholar is that so many of the papers are not free to read in full. Of course the same is true of the books. I'm not going to waste too much time on this given the vexatious nature of the question. It looks like it is right there on page 94 of Rise of the Far Right: Technologies of Recruitment and Mobilization (Melody Devries, Judith Bessant, Rob Watts. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 29 Jul 2021) although I'm just going by the snippets that I can read without paying. Probably there are better sources than that but that's enough to prove that we didn't just pull it out of our arses or get it off a random student. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ rights movement

@NatGertler I issues with your restoration of the LGBTQ rights movement background section restoration.

While it is important to include what the reactionary content is reacting against, it does not fit that the background of the straight pride reactionary movement is tied directly toward the history of the LGBT community. This violates Wikipedia:SYNTH, Wikipedia:NPOV and is possibly original research.

A background section must reflect the background of the subject itself, not another subject, whether it is reactionary to it or not.

This is more about the flow of the article being entirely off and it creates a lack of coherence, making the article feel overall of mediocre and low quality. Wrolen (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about a reactionary situation, we should be showing what it is in reaction to, the context in which it arises. Our article on the American Revolution starts over a century before that revolution took place. Material regarding LGBT pride history has been in this article since at least 2019 (and was not added by me), so while I understand your pointing at me for undoing your section-blanking, realize that this article has been through many edits and had many hands on it in that time, and so it's not just me you "issue" and should be addressing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well you offered a defense as to why it's there, i dont assume you own the background section of a wikipedia page, but you did restore the removal.
Whether a reactionary situation should follow a lengthy background on the issue it is reacting to is one thing, whether or not that background is of poor quality and doesnt flow with the entire article is another. I was reading the article from a fresh point of view and it offered little in the article and felt very out of place, lacking coherence and any synthesis at all with the main article's subject.
That is why I bring up a Wikipedia:SYNTH issue, because the background section does not explicitly or effectively tie the history of the LGBTQ community with the reactionary nature of the subject matter, which is a textbook Wikipedia:SYNTH issue.
Although LGBTQ history extends to ancient civilizations, the contemporary LGBTQ rights movement in North America is widely traced back to the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City. Initial newspaper coverage of the riots was limited compared to other civil disturbances of the era. A commemorative march held one year later, which drew approximately five thousand participants along Sixth Avenue, received broader media attention, and established the precedent for annual LGBTQ pride marches.
The late 1960s and 1970s saw shifting social attitudes toward homosexuality in parts of North American society. The period also coincided with the rise of disco culture, which is often noted as providing spaces where LGBTQ individuals had greater visibility.
Reaction
In 1979, a religious revival among conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants contributed to the rise of the Christian right as a political force in the United States during the 1980s. This political shift coincided with increased opposition to LGBTQ advocacy efforts.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s had a significant impact on LGBTQ communities, as the crisis was accompanied by increased stigmatization, social isolation, and violence directed at affected individuals and groups.
Nowhere in this background does it effectively synthesize or link any of the history of the LGBTQ community to the reactionary nature of the Straight Pride movement, so it serves as to not help the definition of Straight Pride as a reactionary movement, but rather to present the article in an overall lower quality than it deserves.
And I dont care if it's been around since 2019. Wrolen (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.