Talk:Pride flag/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lipstick lesbian Pride Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

From the LGBT article:

Controversy.

"LGBT is not uncontroversial. For example, some transgender and transsexual people do not like the term because they do not believe their cause is the same as that of LGB people; they may also object when an organization adds a T to their acronym when the level of service they actually offer to trans people is questionable. There are also LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons.

Many people also believe that a sharp distinction should be drawn between sexual orientation and gender identity. GLB concerns the former; TTI concerns the latter.

Similarly, some intersex people want to be included into LGBT groups and would prefer LGBTI; others insist that they are not a part of the LGBT community and would rather not be included in the acronym".

Dlloyd 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PS.

As for "pride flag" as a term, there are several different pride flags which represent "sexuality and gender identity-based cultures". I think that it is somewhat misled to suggest that the term "pride flag" refers specifically "to one of the flags of the LGBT movement". The "rainbow flag" does not have exclusive rights to the term.

Dlloyd 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored gallery

I have restored the gallery found in Pride flag#Pride flag gallery. these seem important, and I don't see any reason to remove them from the display on the page. I am assuming they were removed from the display by mistake. Frietjes (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The article had an existing gallery. You replaced it with a formatting that increased the size of the flags. I reverted your edit. Now you've again deleted the original gallery with your version. Your new edit, now with size control, displays the flags no different than how they displayed before. This was a needless edit. Furthermore, the summary explanation for your first edit was: "replace per discussion at template talk:flag entry". What discussion? You do not single out whatever discussion you think supported your edit, and the discussions that appear in that talk page do not relate to the gallery that existed in this article. You can't concoct a summary and think that other editors are not going to actually look into it. Pyxis Solitary yak 20:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Vlajka heterosexuálů.png

File:Vlajka heterosexuálů.png shouldn't be on this page, but not really for the reasons mentioned by the anonymous IP. The main reason is that it's a flag for straight people devised by gay people... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rubber?

Is rubber fetishism a pride flag with the same notability and relevance as the others? I'm not an expert, but it feels out of place. i kan reed (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly well-known within certain BDSM circles, though that's not the same as general notability... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not an LGBT flag (as previously discussed at Talk:LGBT symbols/Archive 1, so if the gallery is for LGBT flags only, it might be better to remove it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Transphobic Lesbian Flag

I was wondering, why the article was changed. Originally, the Lesbian flag was the orange-and-pink flag, while the pink-and-red(ish) flag was labeled under "subculture flags" as the "Lipstick Lesbian flag" and the one with the lipstick smear was labeled as "Lipstick Lesbian (original design)". This was fine the way it was, as the lipstick flag without the lipstick smear has been recently viewed as transphobic and harmful to lesbians. Now, the Lesbian flag is the Transphobic flag while the orange-and-pink is put under "Lesbian (2019)". While technically correct that the flag was made in 2019, it makes it seem like the correct flag to use at all times is the transphobic one. I'm curious as to why it was changed, and if it will be changed back? Zhyena28 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

why is the MAP flag not here?

I feel its a notable enough pride flag to be featured here -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.222.7 (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I never heard of it before, but a little Googling appears to reveal that it originated as a hoax: [1] etc. AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

OP was in another thread promoting racial theory. I'm not surprised to see them here promoting other alt-right themes. Disavow per WP:noracists and WP:nonazis. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Scope of title

The current title of the article could open the potential for inclusion of such things as the "straight pride flag" which has been developed by homophobes. In the spirit of NPOV and encylopedicism, it seems that it would be prudent to add "LGBT" or some other qualifier to the page title to specify. Without that qualifier, the arguments against including such a thing as the "straight pride" flag would lack taxonomic rigor. So, perhaps the article title should be "LGBTQ pride flags" instead of just "pride flags". 73.140.122.224 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternately, perhaps *mentions* of that flag (as well as the hoax MAP flag) -- without image -- might be warranted perhaps in a "Controversial" subsection. - 73.140.122.224 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone trying to add that flag?---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't be against the inclusion of a mention of straight flags in this article, which have been developed by both allies and homophobes. It would be within the scope of the article to mention that such the concept of "pride flags" outside (or even opposing) the LGBTQ community exists, which does not necessarily mean endorsing it. Should straight people have a pride flag? It doesn't matter, because it is not Wikipedia's job to arbitrate that (see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:RGW). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 08:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The important thing to remember here is that we can't cover troll flags in a way that gives any appearance of equivalence with genuine pride flags. That doesn't mean that we can't cover them at all but we do have to be very careful when engaging with such bad faith propaganda materials in order to contextualise them clearly and properly for our readers. One possibility would be to have a section called "Parodies, backlash and trolling" for this. That section could explain how such flags are (mis)used as well as showing one or two examples. In my view, all the straight/cis/etc flags fall into this category except for the sincere ally flags, which do have their own issues but at least they are not intended for trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to include a real heterosexual flag, then feel free, but please do not include the horizontal black-and-white striped flag, which is actually a flag devised for straight people by gay people, and which many heterosexuals would find offensive (due to associations with prison uniforms etc. etc). AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That's news to me. I've only ever seen it used in a "straight pride" context but I don't know where it started. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's a troll flag either way. DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a high probability that the horizontal black-and-white striped flag was invented to be the background of the "straight ally" flag. There's also a high probability that a heterosexual flag devised by actual heterosexuals would make use of the obvious rich symbolisms available -- Mars and Venus, pink and blue, hearts, etc. etc. -- and would not try to invoke prison uniforms, zebra stripes, or pedestrian crossings. AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for the meaning of the black and white stripes? What I've looked up says the stripes stand for two genders. What you're saying seems to be from the description of the picture, which was written by user Nikki with no citation. The same stripes are present on other LGBT flags, like Agender. I can't find anything on the history of this flag in Scholar or the Wikipedia Library. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to obvious associations which would occur to many, many people when seeing a pattern of black and white stripes (regardless of what the original intentions may have been). The BDSM "Ownership flag" (i.e. master/slave relationship flag) was designed by its originator Tanos to have black-and-white stripes to specifically invoke prison uniforms or prison bars, but it's hardly an association suitable to heterosexuality. If heterosexuals were devising a heterosexual flag, it's very hard to see how they would arrive at a design which easily lends itself to such unwanted interpretations, while simultaneously ignoring all the other rich symbolisms available, such as Mars and Venus, pink and blue, moon and sun, etc. etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't see Tanos' original website and it isn't on the Wayback machine, so all I know is that it looks like prison stripes to you. To every source I've seen, the stripes in black and white represent dichotomy. In the case of the flag you mentioned, the clear dichotomy would be master and slave. Why would BDSM participants be wearing prison clothes? BDSM isn't about prison. Binding is a sexual fetish, and while both prisons and sexual binding involve constraints, they're for two different purposes. Also, I can't find anything on who created the Heterosexual pride flag other than the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia commons. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever -- I almost certainly know quite a bit more about Tanos than you do, since I was a fairly regular participant on his site for at least two or three years (back when it was still a discussion board site), and Tanos basically blessed as official my SVG vectorizations of his flag designs. Prison role-play or metaphors aren't a large part of BDSM, but they definitely exist, and were one of the things that Tanos had in mind when he designed his flag (other things were a shield for owners, a collar for those owned, which is also the letter "O" for ownership ideology, etc). And of course, the Tanos Ownership flag existed for years before anyone heard of the horizontal black-and-white striped so-called "straight"[sic] flag. Tanos was a minor participant on both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons back in the day, and you could try contacting him on his user talk pages, but I doubt you'd get a reply, since he seems to have mostly withdrawn from the Internet...

Also, yet another negative insulting connotation of the horizontal black-and-white striped flag is of course the implication that heterosexuals are dull boring people with monochrome lives, while queers have vivid exciting technicolor lives. The fact that the horizontal black-and-white striped flag has so many obvious negative interpretations is a strong indication that it's a flag for heterosexuals devised by non-heterosexuals (very likely originally as the background for the "Straight Ally flag", as I mentioned before). AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of original research and POV. You may have a lot of feelings on these issues, but they shouldn't influence what goes into a page unless there are sources to back up any statements or direction of presentation. Although, it's iffy since there isn't a lot of easily accessible academic coverage of what I suppose amounts to the pop culture of the LGBT+ movement; all the flags and their descriptions that we currently have might as well be considered OR, as far as I understand. I guess it doesn't matter since no one seems too interested in adding a straight pride reference here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Original Research matters a lot when it comes to information to be added to an article, but when it comes to background information in a talk page discussion as to whether something should be excluded or included on an article, it may not be that important. My evidence is mostly circumstantial (except for the rather clear connection to the Straight Ally flag), but cumulatively it's quite strong (in the absence of any specific documented disconfirming evidence). However, if something I want to be excluded from an article is excluded from it, but for what I would consider the wrong reasons, I guess I can live with that... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

While we are discussing the title, what about moving it to plural? Because the article isn't about one flag alone, so it probably should be "Pride flags" -- Tazuco [v] 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), Wikipedia article titles are usually in the singular, unless there's something specific which would indicate a plural title would be more appropriate. (In contrast, category names are very often plural.) AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Man, Woman, Non-binary gender, Pride flag. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Gender identity flags

I was trying to find reliable sources for the flags of neutrois, trigender, transmasculine, and transfeminine. But I don't have access to the books and new journals cited in this article (for example, those who reference aroace, demigirl, and pangender). I believe at least neutrois and transmasculine flags are notable. MikutoH (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we add subsections to the flag gallery?

I noticed that a lot more flags have been added since the last time I was here, and they cite enough sources that they likely deserve to stay, but I think this is visual overload. Splitting it up a little might make it a little easier to process it.

Should we add sub-sections to differentiate between flags representing gender identities, flags representing sexual orientations, and other flags that don't fit neatly into either category?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and  Done it since I don't really expect this to be a controversial move, but if anyone has opinions, feel welcomed to leave them here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Very reasonable to split them up, in my opinion.-- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard, it might be a bit problematic to put the flags for gay men, lesbian, etc. in sexual orientation-based flags and leave them out of romantic orientation-based flags. It is also weird to place polyamory in romantic attraction-based flags and not sexual orientation based flags. It implies that those flags represent only the sexual attraction and not the romantic attraction, which is not supported by reliable sources. I think the best way to fix this is to just combine all the attraction-based flags into one subsection, which shouldn't be too clunky. If anyone has other ideas, I'm all ears. Pinging @Joeyconnick who reverted my edit for lack of prior talk page discussion. BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain how polyamory can be seen as a sexual orientation?--TempusTacet (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I realise that what initially seemed like a good idea might not be. The distinctions here are not as clear cut as they need to be for the splitting into sections to be done in an uncontroversially correct way. The fact that we have a category for "other flags" and that contains some of the most significant LGBTQ flags, like the rainbow flag and the intersex flag, might tell us that we are going wrong here.

Both BappleBusiness and TempusTacet make valid points. I think that TempusTacet is correct that the polyamory flag belongs in the Romantic attraction–based flags section if we are to have one at all but that BappleBusiness is right that it would be better not to make this distinction at all, not least because it sort of requires us to include many flags in both sections. The asexual lesbians may not be happy to see the lesbian flag only in the sexual orientation–based flags section.

These are not the only problems. I also think that Lipstick lesbian is most similar to Bear and belongs in the Other section. The Labrys flag also, if we accept its framing as a political flag and not an attraction one, but then maybe we don't need all the lesbian flags in the gallery at all if we already have them in a section above? So, yeah. I don't know. Maybe we are just making a rod for our own backs here? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that "polyamory" cannot possibly be seen as a sexual orientation. I'm trying to understand BappleBusiness' and your concern with the current split. To me, based on my current understanding, the way that the flags are separated as either representing a sexual orientation or a romantic orientation seems logical to me but apparently not to you. Could you explain how "asexual lesbian" is not a contradiction, seeing that it combines two conflicting sexual orientations? Is "lesbian" understood as a romantic orientation (homoromantic) in this context?--TempusTacet (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in this context, "asexual lesbian" would probably be an asexual homoromantic person. A lot of these identities (especially those that don't explicitly have "sexual" in them; e.g. "gay" and "lesbian") tend to encompass both romantic and sexual attraction, since I believe there has traditionally been less of a distinction between them.

Actually, the more I think about it, I do worry that we are legitimizing a split between "LGB" and "TQ+" that has been pushed by the LGB Alliance and other transphobes in the 2020s anti-LGBT movement. I would rather not play into that. And with the concerns brought up by @DanielRigal, I also don't know if it's as clear-cut as we're making it out to be. For example, should polyamory be considered a sexual/romantic orientation, or a relationship practice? Should the lipstick lesbian flag and labrys lesbian flag be with attraction-based flags or with other flags; if the former, should the bear flag join them? I think there might be too many questions here that we might not be able to justify or properly contextualize with a simple table. BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why in the world is this not protected in any way shape or form?

It seems liable to be vandalized by right wingers like myself Fishman8088 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The assumption is that most editors are acting in good faith. We keep articles protected as little as possible and as briefly as is necessary to prevent disruption, Fishman8088. For example, if you were to start vandalizing this article, an administrator could block you from just this article or block you sitewide, depending on the nature of your vandalism. The article has been protected in the past. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Fishman8088 (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)