Talk:Save Our Children

Homophobia category

There seems to be an attempt to prevent this category from being added to the article. The homophobia category is for articles that relate to the topic of homophobia. It is not meant as a pejorative category. One of the editors trying to remove the category has used reasons such as "just because they (Save Our Children) oppose the gay agenda does not mean they are afraid of it". First of all, the dictionary definition of homophobia means "an intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" (World English Dictionary) and "an irrational fear of, or aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Considering that the Save Our Children campaign's very purpose was to deny civil rights to homosexuals, and also for the perceived "threat" of homosexuals "recruiting" their children, they are pretty much a textbook example of homophobia. Right-wingers may not like this, but it doesn't stop it from being true. Furthermore, while the category currently stipulates that "it is not meant for persons, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic", Save Our Children self-identify as a group who wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals. It was their sole purpose, and therefore there is nothing "alleged" about it. The article therefore meets the criteria to be included in the category. Particled (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at Category_talk:Homophobia. It's not about this article's contents, but the propriety of the category to this and similar topics. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Moni3 beat me to it: the use/misuse of the category has been discussed at length, so please work to change consensus there if you wish. AV3000 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that placing the article in this category is actually in accordance with the category's appropriate usage and purpose. Therefore, the discussion should take place right here. The consensus to avoid putting people and groups in the category who are "allegedly" homophobic was to avoid public figures/groups being put in when there was no solid evidence that they were homophobic (i.e. if somebody made a homophobic joke, would it really mean that they were homophobic, etc). In that respect, I can understand why inclusions to the category have to be carefully thought through. But, as already stated, the Save Our Children campaign actually self-identified as a group that aimed to deny cicil rights to homosexuals. Their "fear" of "homosexual recruitment" (a ridiculous term I know) was the premise behind the campaign. There is absolutely no question that this article fits the homophobia category, and it would seem to me that people who want to keep it out of the category are perhaps biased towards the article's subject. 82.26.42.174 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the discussion should take place at the category, not the article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the discussion should be here. There has already been a discussion at the category, and consensus decided the boundaries that the category could be used for (pertaining to homophobia but not people or groups that are "allegedly" homophobic). It seems pretty clear to me that individual inclusions or exclusions to the category should be discussed on the individual article pages. The discussion at the category pages should be about the category itself, not individual article pages. Particled (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sure. Let's all wait for a discussion on a category at the article talk page. I'm going to hold my breath. Whatever you do, don't bring this up at the category talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

full text of the ordinance

Is it possible to provide the full text of the ordinance "that banned discrimination in areas of housing, employment, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation"? Was it really about discrimination? --A1 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Article quality

Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and noticed lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Save Our Children

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I count one paragraph without citations. At the end, starts "Political activism in American gay communities"

The rest are cited. Someone came through around 2009 and put in a bunch of citation needed tags that aren't needed. All the information is cited. They don't know or like what topic and linking sentences are. I never dealt with them because article watch fatigue is real.

Remove those cite needed tags and find a source for the paragraph mentioned. Simple. Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Moni3: Do you or any other editors want to check that the source verifies the information labelled with citation needed, and provide citations for the last two paragraphs in "Gay activism"? Of course, we are all volunteers so no pressure either way. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a group project. Article maintenance should be in everyone's interest. To find a decent source you could google:

  "act up" protest 1980s gay political activism direct action protest

  and

  "queer nation" "lesbian avengers" "pink panthers"

  If no one volunteers to do this, i.e. add a source or two to this article, something I think is grossly simple, I will do it myself while being really annoyed that no one can do this. Really easy.

  As for the citation needed tags throughout the article, I already know they're unnecessary. I wrote the article. Anyone else is more than welcome to check the sources. Group project and all. Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Moni3 dear, I'm glad you're back, even if it's for this occasion. We sorely need you, my friend, now more than ever. I suspect that this article has been brought to reassessment because these kinds of articles, as you well know, are subject to a higher scrutiny than many others. Same ole'—well, you know. I am out of town right now, for my sister's wedding, but I will take a look when I get back home, maybe tomorrow since I have a day off before I leave on that jet plane. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Congratulations to your sister. Feel free to catch up on my talk page. It's good to see you. Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're really accusing Z1720 of specifically targeting this article when he is by far the single most prolific GAR initiator and is clearly targeting articles with old promotion dates and uncited text? What happened to AGF here? Please retract your entirely unwarranted aspersion in the interest of maintaining a collegial environment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Bro if it's not about the article, take it to the user's talk page. Basic Wikipedia functioning. Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  First, sorry this got past my radar and slipped out of my attention. Been kinda busy. Trains, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I'm a little paranoid about the higher scrutiny these articles tend to get and I was mostly venting. Nothing personal, believe me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Wikipedia is a group project and that these fixes might be easy for some, I am already engaged with lots of wiki-projects and can't devote the necessary time to fix up this article. However, fFeel free to ping me when this is article is ready for a re-review. In regards to the citations: some of the statements with a cn tag might be verified by the subsequent footnote, but this will need to be checked before the tag is removed. Other statements, particularily at the end of paragraphs and the last two paragraphs of "Gay activism", will need to have citations added. Would it be helpful to add citation needed tags for some of the other statements that need them? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"but this will need to be checked before the tag is removed"

Who does this? What checking? Reading the sources? Which other sentences or paragraphs need citation tags?

For the paragraph with no cites currently:

Cite 1:

"The HIV/AIDS Epidemic and Public Broadcasting 1989-1991: Broadcasting ACT UP Direct Action" American Archive of Public Broadcasting website. Retrieved May 29, 2025.

Cite 2:

Amory, et al. Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies PDF, Milne Publishing (2025). p. 3.1.12

Violence against LGBTQ+ Americans continued, including the rural murders of Brandon Teena and then Matthew Shepard. Both murders gained so much media coverage that they eventually became movies. Outrage against antigay violence and prejudice led New York ACT UP members to form Queer Nation in 1990 and inspired groups like the Pink Panthers (1990) and Lesbian Avengers (1992). Their direct actions to liberate sexuality and gender from heteronormativity were defiantly queer. A particularly controversial tactic was exposing the closeted homosexuality of antigay politicians and pundits. New federal hate-crime tracking confirmed the scope of anti-LGBTQ+ violence, indicating that over 10 percent of violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s identity were based on sexual orientation, putting that category behind only race and religion. Congressional passage of the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (1994) included gay bashing as a federal crime to ensure fairer trials.[64]

Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Moni3: Any editor can check to see if the citation needed tags are needed, and remove them if the source verifies the claim or if another source is added as a citation. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Is your intention to wait to see if someone comes along to read the sources? It's my experience if you're waiting for someone to do that, it's not going to happen. The article stood for years with these cite needed tags. If you're holding the article in GA reassessment until that happens, I mean, we'll be here a while. Either way, keep me updated. Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Moni3: In my experience, GARs have two purposes: to outline the reasons why an article might no longer meet the good article criteria, and to see if an editor wants to address those concerns. If a GAR is open for a month and no one wants to make the necessary improvements, then an article might be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Poor conduct at a GAR is absolutely relevant and should be called out, and I am not your "bro". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This article has been tagged as a contentious topic WP:CTOP under arbitration. Sidetracking a discussion about how to improve the article will not work in your favor. The best recourse is to address user behavior on the user's talk page. Or allow Z1720 to address it on the user's talk page if they feel compelled to do so.

If you're here to help with the article, I look forward to your cooperation.

Bro. Moni3 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

For Z1720 and anyone else reviewing:

Citation needed tags were placed in the article July 2014 by IP user 31.39.53.205.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=prev&oldid=616081554

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081554

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081885

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616081998

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=616197065

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618120924

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618129884

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_Our_Children&diff=next&oldid=618145090

Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Moni3 and Figureskatingfan: or any other editors reading this: Are you interested in making edits to address the concerns? Of course, there's no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: I worked on it. Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Moni3: I have added citation needed tags to the article. "Florida Department of Citrus (1986)" is listed in Bibliography but are not used as inline citations. Should they be removed or put in a new "Further reading" section? Also, "Shilts" is used twice as an inline citation (1982 source and a 1987 source) but there are some inline citations, like ref 47 and ref 55, which do not specify which source their page number is for. Z1720 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand the issue with the source from the Florida Department of Citrus. It's used to cite the following: "The commission received thousands of letters both supporting Bryant's stance and condemning the commission; at one point the U.S. Postal Service installed bomb detection equipment for the mail collected for delivery to the Florida Citrus Commission." cite #66.

  Everything else has been addressed. Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• In the inline citation, it is listed as Florida Citrus Commission" while the bibliography lists it as "Florida Department of Citrus". These should match so that the reader knows which source the inline citation is pointing to. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think I solved that. Then I unsolved it. Then I resolved it. Or I might have unsolved it again, idk, Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Moni3: It's been resolved! All the citation needed templates have been resolved. All that is left for me is the block quote that starts with "Suddenly you have this red herring in Anita Bryant.": This needs an inline citation. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's cited in the text, like the quote from Bryant in the next section. Cite 34. Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Concerns seem to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.