Talk:Straight pride

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

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)

...or even anything that describes it as a "group". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed here. AdylmanW (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

OK! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

Yes. I agree that it should be in the body as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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:

• Rise of the Far Right: Technologies of Recruitment and Mobilization
• Broads, Sisters, Exes: Feminist Millennial Television

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's one more source () 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)

That's not an either-or situation. We could, and I think should, say both. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)