Talk:Anita Bryant/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article ignores Bryant's many tours around the world with Bob Hope

For many veterans who saw the Bob Hope Christmas shows in dangerous locations around the world, the name "Anita Bryant" doesn't conjure up anything at all but how wonderful it was for entertainers to travel so far, at such inconvenience, to do shows for soldiers. The article seems to have a very strong focus against Bryant. But I remember her singing "Silent Night" in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) If you want to correct the political slant of this article back to more about her music, and I agree adding a bit about the Bob Hope tours would fit very well, edit the page, wikipedia needs as much useful help as it can get.--Paddling bear (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stub

If ever I saw a stub in need of a major re-write... - Hephaestos 04:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) Thanks Bunk. Much better. - Hephaestos 04:43, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

NPOV?

Ed Poor asserts that this article is not neutral because it is "Very one-sided, basically assumes that Bryant is wrong and homosexuality is okay". The article presents Bryant's viewpoints in her own words, and balances them with those of her opponents, in their own words. If Ed thinks that discrimination against homosexuals, for which Bryant fought, is "okay", he should find someone who agrees with him and add an attributed quote to the article rather than "poison the well" by asserting it is not neutral. Bunk 20:46, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with Ed on this -- not that I agree with Ms Bryant's POV. Yet it seems that a disproportional part of this article is about a Gay rights measure in Florida & not her; the latest date that references Bryant is in 1977. Has she done anything since then? Would someone do some research & fill in the gaps? That would help make this article appear more NPOV. -- llywrch 22:12, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

She has. I left it out, because most of what she's done since reflects poorly on her. But I'll be happy to add it if you think it improves the article. -Bunk 22:36, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You mean you have proof of her killing kittens & puppies for fun & profit? ;-)

Seriously, even if she's devoted the rest of her life to "converting" homosexuals & picketting abortion clinics (or sponsors a Pentacostal S & M dating club), as long as it can be documented & focusses on her (& not Gay rights), it should go in. -- llywrch 00:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that Bunk's argument is Bunk, but I (Ed Poor) think he's framed it poorly. It's like the abortion debate: one side calls itself "pro-life" and the other "pro-abortion" -- while the other side calls itself "pro-choice", etc. Each side tries to win the debate by FRAMING tactics. The debate over homosexuality is not just a "rights" thing. And I think Anita Bryant was not so much campaigning against "the rights of homosexuals" as asserting her belief that homosexuality is immoral. -Unknown

She was campaigning to repeal a specific law that guaranteed civil rights regardless of sexual orientation. It may not be the way you like to see it "cast", but it's fact. -- Bunk 22:36, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. If she merely wanted to assert her belief that homosexuality was immoral, then all she had to do was say it. But to actually launch a major campaign to prevent gay people from having equal rights in society is doing far more than just asserting her beliefs. It is homophobic - the same way that denying black people equal rights is racist. Bryant is entitled to her opinion, but she must also accept that her opinions and actions will make her a homophobe in the eyes of many others.

However, I have no specific changes to recommend to the article. And I agree with Llywrch that someone should do some research and fill in the gaps. --Uncle Ed 22:26, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just read the news about the law against gay adoption being struck down and had to look up who Anita was, and thought I'd add that bit here. Sorry for messing up the page image and needed 4-5 edits to fix it; should have left it alone perhaps, but it needed a citation anyway. Sorry whomever edits this most. I used the court description from the news (district court) rather than the article's "Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit" - anyone know if they are same or did it go to this appeals court first then up to district? The article does say many assumed it would go to Florida's highest court (state supreme court) so perhaps this district court was one higher.--Paddling bear (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination?

I was too busy to think about it the last couple of days, but... the part that needs attribution as POV is the part which equates "discriminating against" homosexuals with "not giving the same civil rights".

• One side argues that (A) homosexuals should be given the same civil rights as homosexuals and (B) it's discrimation not to do so
• The other side says that (A) no, they shouldn't and (B) this is not discrimination

I'd like to read some comments on this analysis before I make any changes. I think I've just had an 'insight', but maybe all I've done is put on a 'blindfold'. *sigh* Who ever said NPOV was easy? --Uncle Ed 15:01, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think "not giving equal civil rights" to group X is pretty much the definition of "discrimination". --Bunk 20:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. In fact, about 1/2 of American adults surveyed in recent years agree with you. On the other hand, there are those who disagree with you -- people who think that practicing homosexuals should be categorized somewhat the same as convicted felons (right to vote is taken away, but this is not called "discrimination"). But don't misunderstand: I'm not saying the Wikipedia should endorse Anita Bryant's POV or reject the "not giving equal civil rights = discrimination" POV. I'm saying that while it may seem axiomatic to some (say, the "right-thinking, reasonable people") -- to others (shall we say, the nasty, hypocrital, right-wing prudes?) it's not axiomatic. If it sounds to you like I'm defending Flat Earthers against Modern Scientists -- well, then it only means that the flat earth theory is a minority POV rejected by 99%+ of scientists, educators, and congressmen who fund NASA! Likewise, the POV that (a) homosexuals should not have identical 'civil rights' as heterosexuals, yet (b) this isn't "discrimination" is also a POV. Even if it's a minority POV, it's still a Point Of View. Sorry to be longwinded, but I'd rather bore you to death than start and edit war!! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound rather like Flat Earthers. I reject the idea that every time the Earth is mentioned a neutral encylopedia would mention that some people think the earth is flat. Every time fire is mentioned, we don't need to allude to phlogiston. Similarly, it's not necessary to mention that some people think homosexuality is evil every time homosexuality comes up - though this article alreadly does that. In this specific cse, Ms. Bryant campaigned against a law (titled "Civil Rights Ordinance") that was worded to guarantee "civil rights" regardless of "sexual orientation". A neutral definition of discrimination is "denial of civil rights". Nonetheless, if using "discrimination" to mean "denial of civil rights" is so objectionable to you, the article is easily tailored so that it fits your prejudices, and I have just done so. I don't think you'll find the word discrimination there anymore. -- Bunk 21:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If I seem prejudiced to you, then it's quite likely that I am harboring unconscious prejudice. I'm far too unreliable a judge of my own self to deny that possibility! In fact, I regularly seek coaching from others. --Uncle Ed 22:42, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Probably the biggest mistake in this argument is the assumption that the US federal government should be granting or restricting rights based on religion status and morality. I am all for strong religion -- but churches powers should be limited to kicking folk out of their own congregation for beliefs and practices. However certain religious doctrine common to all major Christian churches is enforced by US federal and state law or incentives.

In specific marriage was originally a church only institution. But Christian church groups have long used their voting block clout and elected representatives to write special privileges and penalties into federal law for those who follow their morals and religious rites -- most importantly tax breaks and until the 1960s significant penalties for sex with unmarried status. Polygamy, homosexuality and women's rights have little to do with the needs national government.

Yet US Democracy has certainly been used to write religious based mob laws. Political Might makes right and will likely continue to do so until such efforts to join church and state are declared treason punishable by death.69.23.121.234 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

+Bryant, -hater

I've made some edits to the article, hoping to point it towards a NPOV. No, I don't agree with what she says, but as I fixed things, I think it focusses more on Bryant, & less on Just Another Person Who Hates Gays. (FWIW, I changed the date of her pie-ing because I remember reading her interview in Playboy which alludes to the event -- the interviewer, who happened to be at the scene, made the joke that the price of the pie was 69 cents. And I know I stopped reading Playboy by 1984 at the latest -- although I've looked at pictures since then ;-). -- llywrch 00:26, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Since when is an article made neutral by systematically deleting quotations of a person's foe? The article should, quite properly, focus on her interactions with gay rights advocates: it's the only historically important thing she's done. Nonetheless, if the wikipedian community wants to obscure the reaction she provokes in gay men and women, that's the way it has to be. -- Bunk 00:36, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The paragraph I removed is, frankly, irrelevant. Isn't there a more general article about the history of law & homosexuality? If not, there ought to be. -- llywrch 01:43, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, just delete the counterbalance to her viewpoint and leave it unopposed. Oh, and please label it hatred in the process. -- Bunk 05:38, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you are going to be sarcastic, then should I conclude that you don't want to hear from other points of view? I'm arguing to make this article more than a one-dimensional sketch of an entertainer & subject for Trivial Pursuit. I looked to see what articles are linked to this one, & they are very few: 2 concerning songs (it was something of a fad to pillory Bryant in the 1970s for her intolerance), & one from Homosexuality and morality -- one practically had to know her story to learn about her. (I added the link to her at 1940 as a result of this.) In other words, I'd say 90% of the people who come to this article have made up their minds about it already. And in the order of things, Bryant is a garden-variety homophobe. If you want a subject to hang a diatribe against legal homophobia, write an article about Lon Mabon. Unlike Bryant, that piece of work is still out there & working hard for what he believes. -- llywrch 18:38, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anita Bryant is fairly one-dimensional. She's a garden-variety homophobe who was a fore-runner in forging an alliance between right-wing politicians and fundamentalist Christians. I don't care to "hang a diatribe" here, that's your mischaracterization, and I leave it to you to treat of Lon Mabon. Holding my breath. -- Bunk 05:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More to the story?

Did Bryant later find out that her son, Bobby, was gay, and did she eventually reverse her anti-queer positions? Both of these facts seem crucial to her story, if true. If not, they need to be discounted, as they seem to be widely held. Dr8 00:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, unless it's just happened in the past few years (which seems unlikely, considering how old he must be by now). Anyway, I don't think it would be possible for Wikipedia to either confirm or discount the story without solid evidence (see the policy mentioned at the top of this page). --Falcotron 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last section?

Roger & Me, Howard the Duck, and David Allan Coe didn't really belong in the "Career decline and bankruptcy" section, so I added a new header. Meanwhile, the article makes it sound as if she's retreated from public sight into the anti-gay Christian right community, when the opposite is true. Not that she doesn't agree with them, but she's a pariah to most of the Christian right, and she does everything she can to stay out of politics while trying (over and over and over) to rebuild her music career. I'm not sure what could be written about her recent life, given that the truth sounds so libelous, but I think something more is needed. --Falcotron 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"beginning of religious right"

I'd like to see some reference to back up the claim about Bryant's crusade being the beginning of the U.S. religious right... the article Christian right in United States politics currently doesn't include this in its history section. 68.35.68.100 07:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's unlikely. I removed it. No citations, no service, at least when it comes to claims like "Anita Bryant founded the religious right." 24.95.50.34 06:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The religious right already had a long history of hate towards women, blacks, etc. They were already well established.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.134.26 (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

politically slanted description?

"After gay activists had succeeded in electing a majority of the Dade Commission in November 1976" Gay activists may have campaigned for certain candidates but the people of Dade county did the electing. The way this is phrased makes it sound as if gay activists are in charge of Dade county elections, rather than being one advocacy group among many. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strainseur (talk • contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Kobe Bryant

I removed a claim that said she was Kobe Bryant's aunt. It was unsourced and I could not find any confirmation for it. The Kobe article says nothing about it. --Revolución hablar ver 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What about her music?

How easily you get obsessed by leftist politics. What a lot of ranting. You can't get your minds off of homosexuals. The reason this article exists in this universe is because she was a hit pop singer. I see a little mention of 3 songs of hers. I'd rather see a bunch of the politics erased and more of the music story. Wonder what prejudices the liberals will show now. George Slivinsky 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anita Bryant is MOST FAMOUS for her homophobic campaigning. It is the thing that brought her the most publicity and is the thing she is still most remembered for today (do a Google search on just her name and see the amount of weblinks that come up in connection to her anti-gay stance). Yes, she was also a singer, and a beauty pageant contestant, and a spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice - and all of these things are cited in the article and if you have any relevant information to add to these sections, then please feel free to do so. But these things pale in comparison to the sheer prominence of Bryant's political campaigning, and her subsequent downfall because of it. I also suspect that if you weren't just a little bit homophobic yourself then you would not have made the above comment (or, at the very least, have worded it a little less antagonistically). MassassiUK 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I'm a child of the '70s and I had no idea she had any sort of pop "career." I remember her hocking orange juice, being a beauty queen, and later being famous for her anti-gay activism. Her fame certainly does not derive primarily from her brief music career. It sounds as though *you* cannot get your mind off teh gays ;) 151.202.13.118 (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it from someone probably a little older than most here Anita Bryant in her time before alot here remember was very famous as a singer for 10 or more years atleast . That was what she was known for . Other things are more recent therefore remembered by more people and of course commented on much more as it has to do with rights and sexuality . That will always naturally attract alot of feeling and comment . Alot more has been loaded on the net about that subject which is no surprise . I agree she is very famous for her stance and views and can see why that takes up much of her entry here but the career needs a bit more I agree . Lack of knowledge on further details is the problem there as you have to be pretty old !! I remember her but was not a fan . Looked here to find more about her after hearing a song on radio and got more than I bargained for !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.75.45 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Category removed

Category:Homophobia was removed.[1] How is having homophia as a category in violation of WP:BLP? Can you be more specific, as I see no violation. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Homophobia" as used in this context is obviously an attempt to label Bryant as a homophobe. Now, we as Wikipedians do not know if Bryant is a homophobe as such we can't just decide to slap that on the article (and only articles where the person has a conservative agenda). [Why hasn't the word been slapped on the articles of homophobes with liberal agendas, e.g, Al Gore?] It is violates the principal of no Wikipedian commentary and since she is a living person is violates BLP. Where is the third party source? There isn't one, just the opinion of a Wikipedian. Now, she might just be a homophobe. I don't know, but neither did the Wikipedian who put her name in that category. How do we know what is in Bryant's heart? I don't claim that I know. Would you find it not a violation of BLP if I created a category called "Racists" and then put former KKK member and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd in the category? Of course, it would be a violation of BLP.--Getaway 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not directly label Anita Bryant as a homophobe, it merely links the article to the subject of "homophobia" which (according to Wiki itself) relates to a fear, loathing and/or discrimination against homosexuals. "As far as discrimination goes, Bryant's campaigning (which is pretty well documented in the article) was a highly prominent - and even historic - example of this. There is no need to twist the truth to fit anybody's agenda, it is simply a solid example of the term. The policy on Wiki BLP clearly states:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

1) The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;

2) The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Bryant's beliefs and her subsequent campaigning easily match both criteria, and therfore this is not a violation of BLP. MassassiUK 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material removed

I have removed material from blp=yes that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That material is essentially a summary of the description of her career she gives in her autobiography. That seems like a sufficiently reliable source to me. It's not footnoted properly, which I'll rectify when I get a minute, but it is all sourced (and this was mentioned in the article). As for the trivia section, WP:TRIVIA doesn't give carte blanche to remove entire sections - flag it if you must, but wiping it out isn't part of the policy. Orpheus 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't wiped out. It is in the history. It can all be put in when someone has the time to properly reference it. I'm afraid vaugue "it's in the book cited at the bottom of the page" is not sufficient for out WP:BLP policy.--Doc^g 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it's in the page history, but WP:TRIVIA says Such sections should not be categorically removed. Regarding the biographical material, surely an autobiography is an adequate source? What would you consider appropriate? Orpheus 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An autobiography is, of course, an adequate source. However, you need to clearly show that each negative claim comes from that source (using "intext citations". Simply listing it at theend won't do. The reason is that someone can then add some untrue claim and we won't be able to tell what's sourced from the bio and what's not.--Doc^g 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to add a sub header, so I'm putting this here: I added that Rita was a "former" good friend of Bryant's copying it from the Rita article. I did not check if there is a source for this, but I think it's more reasonable that she is a former friend instead of a current friend because of the ladies different opinions & actual anti-campaigns against each other's views. Neutralityisimportant (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing "In the 1980s she even renounced her anti-gay ways" since it's such a strong statement and uncited. I am integrating that idea into the following sentence because it's referenced. If anyone can cite the earlier material, replace it. Vcrs (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Button.gif

Image:Button.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality questionable

The neutrality of this article is in question due its being opened with Ms. Bryant's stand on "homosexual" issues. This section should be moved to further within the article under a beliefs or activism section. Her belief concerning the "gay lifestyle" is not the ONLY thing that Ms. Bryant is known for. Thank you.67.142.130.17 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro to an article about a person should list what they are most notable for (usually their work or something they have done). This article opens by stating Bryant is an American singer before it mentions anything to do with her beliefs or political activism against homosexuality, though it could be argued that she was far more widely known for her activism than for her singing career which is why it should be mentioned in the intro. The article itself does not make any judgements about her opinions or activism, it merely states them and the subsequent effect they had on her career and public life. Therefore the article is neutral. 79.66.91.239 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bryant is most known for her political activism and don't think there's a neutrality problem with saying so. The article on Martin Luther King, Jr. opens with his stand on "racism" issues (to paraphrase the user above) - does that make its neutrality questionable? Of course not. This is perfectly acceptable and reasonable because that is what he was most known for. Why on earth should Bryant's activism be hidden or marginalized in an article about her life?

Vcrs (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Anita Bryant was most well known for commercials -- that lots of people saw, because they were all over the television for a long time -- in which she would say, "A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine." -- Rico 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. — Aldaron • T/C 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember Ms. Bryant being "best known for commercials"...she was just a woman on TV singing about orange juice. It was her political involvement that actually gave her headlines and a widespread public identity. Before that she was a Miss America runner-up (not a very high-profile status, for name recognition) and a singer who occassionally had minor hits on the radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.65 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm stashing this sentence here...

because I don't know what section it should be in. (It was in "Cultural references," which is definitely wrong.)

Anita Bryant also narrated the infamous anti-drugs film, Drugs Are Like That.

--zenohockey (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

My last edit was reverted with the edit summary "False: Just do a search". Nothing I added was false; Bryant scored four Top 40 hits, and the article even states so. She was famous for being a singer, and was famous for being an activist; the lead should not exclude one in favor of the other. It previously did not even mention why she was known as a singer at all; it merely stated that she could sing. Chubbles (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous version states quite clearly that she was a singer (not merely that "she could sing"). What's "false" is that she is "also" widely known for her "activism"; "exclusively" is more like it. This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. The current revision overemphasizes her past singing career and downplays her most signficant legacy. — Aldaron • T/C 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that the reason we are having this conversation is because this article deals with race, sex, religion, or politics, none of which are my concern. That she was a famous singer, and how famous, is worthy of note, and worthy of note in the lead. That this may be overshadowed, currently, by the political legacy is also worthy of note, but not exclusively so - the purpose of the article is not to document current opinion. Some historical perspective is needed here. Now, the article, in its current state, is about one-third about her music career, and about two-thirds about her activism. Notwithstanding that her music endeavours could stand to be further fleshed out, it makes sense for the lead to reflect the body of the article, and I've no objections to the lead being expanded to further address her activism. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Still not quite there: the first sentence should be about her activism, which has eclipsed her music career. — Aldaron • T/C 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully a simple split into two should solve that; the first sentence now identifies her as both singer and political activist. I have to go to bed now. Chubbles (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Still whitewashers her most significant legacy. As the first sentence now reads it she could be a human rights campaigner or consumer advocate. — Aldaron • T/C 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All the same to me. Chubbles (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anita Bryant is MOST famous for her homophobic activism, and so it is only natural that this would be the most significant subject in the article. Whilst her singing career should certainly be detailed, there is no way it would come close to matching the prominence (or amount of detail) of her political campaigning.80.41.29.46 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think even with the repairs I've made to Chubbles's edits, the intro is to soft on her real legacy. — Aldaron • T/C 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The intro was paltry when I started; it is now better. No objection to its being made better-er. The "softness" you perceive in my edits is WP:BLP being respected. Please don't mistake me for being a partisan, with you or against you. Chubbles (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I'm not making any hasty further edits. Let's see how other's perceive the current revision and how it sits over time. — Aldaron • T/C 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anita Bryant ministries description – removal of material

As much as hate to come across as an apologist for Anita Bryant, the following is clearly in violation of WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYNTH), WP:SOAPBOX, and, since this is an article about a living person, WP:BLP:

the ministry's web site features little content other than articles promoting her longstanding anti-gay views. ([Reformatting from footnote] See the "Press Room" at http://www.anitabmi.org/2.html and the linked articles "Baptist Press Review" and "Anita was Right" -- courtesy of the Baptist Press and WorldNetDaily, respectively.)

Basically what we have here is not summary of a verifiable published source, but one editor's interpretation of an entire website. That's clearly a novel interpretation and an original synthesis of source material. And I'd argue, not very accurate, because I looked over the entire site, including prior versions on Archive.org, and found almost nothing on homosexuality or her opinions of it. Basically, all I see linked to as sources is one article from WorldNet that she reposted on her site without comment. The "Baptist Press Review" article isn't even from her website and only has passing mention of her past anti-gay activism. So basically, I see precious little to support that statement.

Looking at her shell of a website (link here), I do see an "Anita Bryant Biography" where, among other things, she defends her previous anti-gay activism. That could be the basis for material for this article, as long as the material is carefully summarized rather than "spun". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "...the ministry's web site continues to promote her longstanding anti-gay views..."? Both her biography, and the article she's chosen to link to "Anita Was Right" promote anti-gay views. — Aldaron • T/C 21:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated it to read "However, the biography page on her Anita Bryant Ministries website (written in 2006) continues to defend her earlier anti-gay activism and views." As well as contextualized and dated the Ladies Home Journal interview in which she was apologetic. I didn't want to bring in the WorldNet article because – 1) While there's a copy of it on her website, its not actually linked to from anywhere on the site. This is true even in older versions I looked at on Archive.org. And 2), while it lauds Bryant's 1970s activism, it says doesn't have any current quotes from her and says almost nothing about what she's doing today. It does state, "At a meeting of national leaders in New Orleans this weekend, Anita Bryant received an award and a standing ovation that lasted nearly 10 minutes". Sounds interesting, but what meeting of what national leaders? No idea, and I wasn't able to come up with anything via further searches or the WorldNet site, Google, or Google News. So other than the one page on her website with its defense of her old activism and views, I really can't find anything that meets WP:VERIFY that says anything else about her current views or activities about the subject. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That works. — Aldaron • T/C 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that she was apologetic in the Ladies Home Journal interview at all, she was merely less rabid. By this time she had become divorced and felt the cold shoulder of the church for doing so. But all she said about homosexuality in the LHJ interview was that "I'm now more inclined to say live and let live...but don't flaunt it or try to legalize it". I would hardly say that was apologetic at all. She was obviously backing off now that her career was in tatters, but in no way does it mean she was sorry for what she did. Partial transcript at [2] 80.41.43.80 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian Concentrate

This very amusing record was released back then as a protest against Anita Bryant's campaign. Worth mention? --Stormwatch (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Very amusing to who? Nimrods? No, such meaningless and minor (not to mention non-objective) fringe trivia is not worthy of inclusion, no matter how "amusing" some imbeciles find it. We can find better uses of our time then saddling articles with lists of every insult hurled at the subject of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was made as a response to her political activism and was media-related in some way then it is relevant. 88.104.27.16 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article sure leaves out a lot

Article contains a lot of misstatements and omissions.

First of all, the article uses a very elastic definition of "anti-gay". Basically it implies that anyone who does not think that everything about homosexuality is wonderful and that homosexuality has nothing inherently bad about it at all is "anti-gay." Whether it is natural or not is beside the point, like any other basic variance afflication it is not normal and therefore to imply that it should be treated identically with heterosexuality is absurd. It is absurd as saying that autistic people are just like everyone else and should be treated as such. While it is good and nice to try to treat them like everyone else as much as possible, to do so *completely* tragically ignores the fact that autistics see and interpret the world very differently from everyone else and treating them exactly the same only hurts them and inhibits them from living a full life.

Second, it mischaracterizes Mrs. Bryant in two ways, it implies she was against gays as people when in fact it was the militant ideology of certain gay groups that she opposed. The article treats being against militant homosexuality and being against gay people as the same thing, that is an egregious fallacy on the entries part. The other way is misrepresents her is that it implies she sought out all the publicity for her activism herself. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the creation of her actions as a point of national attention was due solely to media attention. The 70's was a big decade in terms of the mainstream medias fascination with homosexuality and as they are wont to do, they took what was a local referendum in Miami opposing a passed law that engaged in the ludicrous grouping of gays as an distinct minority (putting sexual practices on par with race and religion and thus allowing for all kinds of special treatment and often at taxpayers expense) into a national event. The referendum, BTW, Bryant only led at the bequest of others. From that moment one, Bryant was subjected to the media spotlight as she went about her various activities until their attention span ran out and they moved on to singling out other people and events. The controversy was entirely a media created event, aided and abetted by militant LGBT groups who saw it as an opportunity to latch onto the publicity to garner sympathy for themselves and generate hatred to those who disagreed with their positions. The controversy was a result of a small but loud group of biased voices seeking political gain. The media sought to sorely focus on Mrs. Bryant dealings with homosexual related activism, despite that fact that she was also engaged in many other causes at the same time.

Also, the article, it's in insinuation that Bryant was merely against anti-gay discrimination laws, leaves out two important facts: namely that those bills went far beyond merely outlawing discrimination in that they actually pushed and promoted homosexuality at the same time. (Also, many of them were backed by extremist LGBT groups who at that time was very active in this country in trying to get such laws passed.) The other important factor it leaves out is that the opposition of Bryant and others was based on that. One of the most striking examples of the former point (and there are many such examples) is that they forced religious schools to teach normalizing of homosexuality, a violation of those schools rights as private institutions and their rights to practice their religious beliefs.

And regardless of how you feel about Anita Bryants politics, the fact is that no one deserved the viscous personal attacks, the physical assaults, and the immature insults that she and her family was treated to. It amazing how nasty so-called tolerant people can be and low can they sink. It does not help your claim to tolerance and peace when your response to what you feel is bad behavior is to engage in just as bad or worse behavior. Sinking to your opponents level does not make you look any better. Pie throwing is for the weak and infantile. But as usual, it will all be justified under the banner of punishing someone who has been labeled bad and evil by the politically correct absolutists and therefore "she deserves it." And thus the liberal cycle of hate will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a true homophobe. 88.104.27.16 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your statements about extreme LGBT groups forcing private religious schools in the 70's to teach the normalization of homosexuality is not only inaccurate, it's not believeable. Empirically, any educated person can read that statement and just knows that something like that could not have happened in the 70's. In fact, this has never happened. To my knowledge, a private religious school has never had its curriculum decided by an extremist gay group! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.118.85 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the sense that Bryant's article is incomplete, you are correct. Anyone, obviously, can edit Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources to add information to her life, then add the material.
• Bryant certainly is an interesting character, as described by Ken Kelley, whose interview appeared in Playboy in 1978. I agree that she is too often simplified into a 1-dimensional symbol and object of scorn.
• The rest of the issues about "militant" homosexuality, what Dade county ordinance 77-4 was about, what it promoted, and the politics behind the Save Our Children campaign I think you have misunderstood. I suggest you read reliable sources on these issues to grasp a better comprehension of what 1977 in Miami was about. You grossly overestimate the power of the gay community's involvement in media and politics in the 1970s, for example. If you are then compelled to add to this article from those sources, you are, of course, welcome to do so.
• Wikipedia is not here to state what Bryant or gays in Miami deserved, just to report what happened. --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Scandal more important than the the achievements of a lifetime

The scandal of the pie is widely covered with text, photo, video. But nobody cares about her discography.(Srelu (talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, her music career AND discography are included in the article. It's hardly anybody's fault (except her own) if she was more famous for the pie incident than she was her records. 88.104.27.16 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mikek8989, 24 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would like to request to have the profile pic changed to one of her album covers instead of the florida citrus picture

Mikek8989 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I don't understand your request. There is no photo of Bryant at the top of the article. There is one "No citrus" image and another of her after she was struck with a pie in 1977, but these are in the body of the article. In any event, the image of Bryant could not be of one of her albums. It would have to be just an image of her. And ideally, this image would have to be free: in the public domain. --Moni3 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I found a photo of her "As Long as He Needs Me" album on Flickr under a Creative Commons for commercial use license. I've linked because to be frank,I don't have time to add it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pagedooley/2811154190/ I hope this helps/is able to be used.75.170.166.164 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• The album cover is obviously improperly licenced. It's copyright.--Scott Mac 23:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright sounds good.CygnetFlying (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from poker_dmorr, 2 December 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}} The early career section says:

In 1969 she became a spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission, and nationally televised commercials featured her singing "Come to the Florida Sunshine Tree" and stating the commercials' tagline: "Breakfast without orange juice is like a day without sunshine."

However, the quote is wrong. It's actually "A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine," not "breakfast." You can actually go watch the linked video to see the correct line. Simple fix. Poker dmorr (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure which video you're watching (I don't see any linked in the article), but I just watched this video on youtube, and it says "Breakfast." Are there two different versions of the tagline? If you have a different video with that tagline, please post here then send me a message on my talk page and I'll take a look. If there's two different versions we can account for that in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There do appear to be two different versions. This youtube video features the phrase I remember, "A day without..." 01:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker dmorr (talk • contribs)

Ah yes, that does appear to be the other slogan. I've added that one as well; it's not phrased very neatly, but I can't think of anything better. I considered just making it say "Breakfast/A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine", but I didn't think a reader would understand what the slash meant. If anyone has a suggestion for a better way of phrasing that, please change it (or post here, if you're not auto-confirmed). I'll add this page to my watchlist so I'll see it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

re the Tin and Marcus ref, "gay community" vs. "many"

Regarding this edit changing "the gay community continued to regard her name..." to "many continue to regard her name...", the question is not whether this is true or not but whether Tin and/or Marcus said it.

The passage is ref'd to two cites:

• Louis-Georges Tin, Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience (2003), ISBN 978-1551522296
• Marcus, Eric (2002). Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights. New York, US: Harper. ISBN 0060933917.

Whenever a cited passage is changed (without changing the cite), this raises a bit of a red flag, as it implies that the original cite was wrong. Either that, or the editor is changing the interpretation of the cited material. Either way, the editor needs to explicitly state what he's doing, make his case here; citing passages from the ref would be helpful.

A second question is, if they did say "many" rather than "the gay community", are Tin and Marcus reliable sources for that? Their books are titled Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience and Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights, so it's entirely possible that they are qualified to report what the gay community thinks but not what "many" (that is, the general population) thinks. They may be qualified to do that but I'm less sure of that. Herostratus (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A gay son?

Perhaps another user may confirm or deny - is one of Bryant's sons openly gay? I seem to remember reading as such, but can't seem to find any supporting information one way or the other. --AWF

Maybe it's true, but I'm deleting the line about in this article, because it cites another source that doesn't give any evidence other than it being "reportedly" so.Fmanjoo 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumor is just rumor and Wikipedia must legally treat it as if it is NEVER TRUE. I mean if rumor was accepted then they would have added the standard rumor about strong Christian gay hate lobbyists, i.e. that in fact Anita Bryant's attitude is motivated by a past rejection of her own lesbian crush on classmate early in life. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Bryant is a super Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.184.220 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP vio

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

Whenever you begin a discussion like this, please state which particular material you are referring to and always sign your posts with four tildes (the ~ symbol) even if you do not have an account. Thank you. 88.104.22.120 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"outspoken critic of homosexuality"

This is a meaningless phrase. Is it weasel words, or an attempt to be politically correct? either way, it's silly. Heenan73 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think most people would have no difficulty understanding what "outspoken critic of homosexuality" means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Seems perfectly clear. I can't even tell where the confusion would come in. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

FLA Citrus Commission Comment

According to Up w/Steve Kornacki|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_w/_Steve_Kornacki on 11/10/2013, AB was THE Florida Citrus Commissioner. Whether elected or appointed I do not know??? Does anyone know???User:JCHeverly 21:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bankruptcies

I think the mention of bankruptcies might need to be investigated more. They are linked to a pretty un reliable article, and if you look up Anita's name in Arkansas' and Tennessee's court system she's not there nor her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.66.149 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

USO Tours and Military Performances/ Musical Career

There needs to be mention of Ms. Bryants performances during Bob Hope's USO tours. She did these for 7 years with the likes of Zsa Zsa Gabor and many other notable celebrities.

There also needs to be more mention of her successful performing career. Her career was not built on the created perception that she was all about crusading against Gays. She wasn't. She was a performer first who had a controversial opinion. She's one of the best talents of our time, yet this article makes her look like a villain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.66.149 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pied

What evidence is there that Bryant said “at least its a fruit pie” because -- as this entry claims -- she was "making a pun on the derogatory term of "fruit" for a gay man”? Without proof I think it much more likely that she didn’t think that quickly and it was actually a fruit pie. Prove or remove. Nicmart (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A source, a CNN transcript, has been added. A quote of her saying this also appears in the documentary "The Day it Snowed in Miami"Paulgush (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

LGBT Rights was not in her vocabulary, was it?

Let us avoid anachronism. Such rhetoric was not part of the Orange Juice AB era. There are no LGBT rights. "Human rights" are largely a matter of opinion, intrinsically without proof of existence (unless one equates "wanting to be able to do something" with a "right"). The only right I can think of at the moment is the right to become a child of God which exists for those who trust the Lord Jesus as Savior. If you think people have rights, then give the proof of that. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

You are quite right that Bryant would not have used a term such as "LGBT rights". Unfortunately, you altered the lead to say that Bryant opposed "sodomy". To say that Bryant opposed "sodomy" is even more misleading than to say that she opposed "LGBT rights" since it makes it sound as though she was concerned solely with a specific sexual act. I have therefore reverted your change. Regarding the rest of your comments, please see WP:NOTFORUM. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need that last bit?

I think we aught to remove the last sentence of this article, "Also ridiculed on the MLive.com Lions forum circa 2005." It adds a very miniscule amount of information, and can be considered trivial in comparison to the rest of the article. Anyone opposed? -Unknown

Removed "back when Florida was reliably Democratic"

I have removed from the first paragraph the phrase "back when Florida was reliably Democratic" as it is both confusing and irrelevant. -Unknown

Besides Florida?

I believe Anita Bryant moved on to a nation-wide crusade against gay folk and was largely sucessful. Should this article address that as well? -Unknown

Bankruptcies

I think the mention of bankruptcies might need to be investigated more. They are linked to a pretty un reliable article, and if you look up Anita's name in Arkansas' and Tennessee's court system she's not there nor her husband.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anita Bryant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This reference is clearly anti-heterosexual and anti-religion. It was created so homosexuals could feel better about themselves. The entire reference should be deleted.71.117.220.238 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Elwood P. Suggins

Last edited at 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification and Elaboration of the October 1977 'Pieing' incident

I happened to watch this on a recent retrospective of the 1970s, and though yes... it does get involved in other fields (policy, security, rights) ... I was wondering if someone could enlarge this incident to some degree, possibly making it a separate section. Not seeking to denigrate either side in this affair, but this 'pieing', as it was on live TV and to a broadcaster, is a notable if very unfortunate event. (John G. Lewis (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC))

Understanding this article is about Anita Bryant and not one incident, what else is there to say? What other due coverage is remaining to add? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anita Bryant. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105075806/http://digital.library.okstate.edu:80/encyclopedia/entries/B/BR029.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/B/BR029.html

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) 10:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please check when somebody changes a quote

As you can see here, an IP user changed a quote from The New York Times in November 2014 to make the subject look better, and it wasn't caught until today. Please stay vigilant as the subject apparently continues to maintain supporters who will inject lies into public sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

RiffTrax

RiffTrax covered Bryant. The evidence that this is significant is that the RiffTrax reference proves it exists. This criterion is passed by EVERY article in every notable magazine and newspaper that has ever run an article on every notable person ever. Next, we'll have to add all of the TV shows, films, books, operas, cartoons, rock songs, albums, etc. about Nixon to Richard Nixon. At that rate, this article will be much, MUCH longer if someone who want to promote The New York Times, Time or 60 Minutes comes along.

No one is reading this article looking for a few randomly selected satires of Bryant. This is utterly trivial. If there are other self-source trivial pieces in the article, they should be removed. They are not an argument to keep this one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The material should be kept. To me, it seems entirely possible that readers of the article might indeed be "looking for a few randomly selected satires of Bryant". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A few randomly selected satires of Bryant, maybe a few randomly selected interviews, a few randomly selected mentions of her in films, etc. is clearly indiscriminate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Protests in other countries/languages

In The Netherlands there was protest in the streets, and also the Dutch levenslied singer Zangeres Zonder Naam had a succesful single "Luister Anita" (listen Anita), that opened with "Zeg luister Anita, jij de vrouw zonder weerga" (hey listen Anita, you the women without rival) and later has the text "Dus beste vent hou gerust van je vriend" (so dear man do not hesitate loving your boyfriend). I don't know about other countries. Should there be some attention in this article to foreign reactions? --FredTC (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"scathing reference"

Concerning the last sentence in the first paragraph under "Notoriety". I find it strange how there's quotes from all the songs except the Dead Kennedy's, which is just simply referred to as a "scathing reference".

Wikipedia is not censored, so feel free to add it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is also considered WP:OR without a reliable source which is why I just removed it. Wlmg (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Pied

The entry says, “Bryant quipped 'At least it's a fruit pie,'[27] making a pun on the derogatory term of "fruit" for a gay man.” What is the evidence that she intended to make a pun? The citation doesn’t provide evidence for that assertion. Nicmart (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Jordan Is Not Unbiased

Regarding whether or not Bryant wrote her books, Mark D. Jordan is hardly an unbiased source. His assertion, therefore, should be treated as such and either balanced or replaced with one which does not have such inherent bias against Bryant and her views. Or, at least, identify that Jordan himself is heavily involved in LGBTQ+ scholarship and advocacy, and might have a stake in discrediting Bryant.Mwidunn (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ministries

At this moment the section entitled Ministries seems to have nothing to do with any ministries/religious activities. Should it be retitled? Jbsegal (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I've changed it to 'other activities.' Bkatcher (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)