Talk:Save Our Children

To do for possible FA

Miami Herald on microfilm:

• December 6, 1976
• Editorial: December 8, 1976
• Editorial: December 18, 1976
• January 18, 1977
• April 14, 1977
• June 5 - 7, 1977
• August 24, 1969
• September 1, 1970
• October 14, 1978 - pie
• May 1980 - Bryant - Green divorce

Newsweek on microfilm

• George Will "How Far Out of the Closet?" Newsweek June ? 1977

The Advocate on microfilm

• Army Admits Its Help To Anita Was Illegal. Advocate, 8/7/80 Issue 298, p8, 0p; (AN 10188933)
• WELCOME TO WICHITA. By: Shilts, Randy. Advocate, 4/19/78 Issue 239, p38, 0p; (AN 10327054)
• THE POLYESTER PLOT. By: Shilts, Randy M.. Advocate, 3/8/78 Issue 236, p7, 3p; (AN 10298088)

Advertising Age on microfilm

• June 6, 1977

• Ms. magazine September 1977: campaign was about fear of sexuality: library storage

• The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality

Spelling

Two extremely minor spelling questions:

• "Pieing"? Or "pie-ing"? Neither looks right, of course :)
• Èmigrès? Or keep it without the accents?

I'll be reviewing more tonight. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My Firefox spellchecker did not underline pieing. I'm gonna go with that.

I can add the accents. I should probably do that to the Spanish names, too. --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Save Our Image-Use Policy

There are seven images used in this article. None whatsoever are free. Over and above the fact that that would be a dealbreaker at FAC, what's the justification for most of them? I can see, perhaps, the pied face, and maybe one of the brochures, but not for all the magazine covers. What's the rationale? The article would not be significantly weakened if most of them were removed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know yet if this will go to FAC, but I understand that's beside your point. There are now three fair-use images in the article. Is there a threshold of images to words? Or images to the article? I was conscientious in both magazine covers in the justifications on the image pages. Is it a case of being more thorough in the justifications, in the article text, or simply not including them at all? --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you ask some people, the less you include the better. The main justification for including them in this article would be a discussion of the image itself in the accompanying text, as you seem to have done with the pie image (and most of what's in that cutline really ought to be in the text ... IMO, there is no reason an image cutline should take up as much space as the image itself). Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the few spirited discussions involving images I've claimed Fair Use for (Birmingham campaign, Stonewall riots), complete and perhaps over-thorough justification of the image in the article and its caption has been the factor which allowed for its full undisputed use. Media representation is a major part of this article because these issues had never been discussed before on such a widespread scale. The specialized media outlets in Christian broadcasting and gay magazines were also an important factor in fundraising for the campaigns and outcome afterwards. I sincerely hate tussling with images; the policy is individually interpreted and quite unclear. I find it very frustrating, so if I don't think the article needs it I don't put it in. I think these images are warranted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine. As I have suggested elsewhere, I really don't like this policy too much, for the reasons you claim and many, many others, and I'm not going to press it here. But some other people might make an issue of it. Just a heads-up more than anything else. Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article review

Thoughts, as they come to me, to be ignored if desired :)

1. The lede is a bit long, though I see it covers what is needed. Perhaps the side-note about Prop 6 could be removed?
2. "Background", 1st para: the word "gay" is over-used here. Also, and this is less certain, the sentence with Ruth Shack in it might need to be split? Or reworded? It reads a bit funny to me.
3. {{cn}} for "hundreds of parishoners"?
4. What is "Club Baths"?
5. The "40 cities" sentence seems a bit out of place - the section is about homosexuality in Miami.
   • Tweaked it.
6. "concerning one if its parishioners" doesn't scan right to me.
   • Tweaked it.
7. After Lyndon Johnson, a sentence starts "More recently" - that's a jarring time-indicator, since it usually comes from a present-tense stance. As in, "She used to drink Coke, but more recently had started trying Pepsi." I see what is being said, but would re-word that a bit.
   • Tweaked it.
8. In "Note 1", Green's name is presented as if we know who that is. His name was mentioned once, a paragraph and a half back in the main text, which is too far removed for that, IMO.
   • Tweaked it.
9. I would uncomment the ref for the 5-3 vote.
   • That's a reminder that I need to ref that statement from the Miami Herald, which I have not yet had the time to view.
10. The Robert Brake side-note make the sentence a run-on IMO.
11. The first two sentences of the third paragraph in the "Strategy" section seem out of place. They are referring to her national status, or relating to other cities, when the next sentences (and the rest of the section) are local in scope.
12. The third paragraph of the "Outside help" section is a bit disjointed. The first sentence doesn't seem to go with the following two.

That's it for now - off to bed to dream of sucking oranges. More later. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll work on these. Did you find any concerns with POV or neutrality? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not found any POV issues. I, of course, am trying to be neutral, but find it a bit difficult. I believe the article is good, but would love to have someone else take on the POV/neutrality issue. I haven't seen anything blatant, though.

One thing I noted everywhere is that almost throughout the article you have punctuation in a way I wouldn't use it - after the quotation mark. In other words, the article often has:

something".

where I would use:

something."

I don't know if MOS says something about that, but it caught my eye several times. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing where I left off:

1. In the "Media" section: "As a result, during the 1970s fundamentalist Christians began to develop radio and television broadcasting in the 700 Club run by Pat Robertson, ..." -- "began to develop .. broadcasting in the 700 Club"... There's a subject-verb issue? Or something that doesn't make sense there.
2. "It was a bi-weekly magazine..." I'm assuming you mean The Advocate here, but perhaps that should be repeated? The "It" is a tad loose.
3. "Major mainstream news outlets" - maybe just "Mainstream" OR "Major"?
4. In the "Communities" section: "Foster and Geto set the public tone side of the campaign"
5. "nor run commercials righting the misconception that child molesters were primarily heterosexual" - I think that's opposite what you mean to say
6. The sentence that starts "Since the advent of second wave feminism..." needs a citation, IMO.
7. In the "Response" section, I could be wrong, but shouldn't "...civil rights bill in U.S. Congress..." be "in the U.S. Congress..."?
8. At the end, "It was renamed soon to..." - change to "It was soon renamed to..."?
9. In the "Violence" section, "Two weeks after the Dade County vote a gardener" - add a comma after vote?
10. "Gay activists in New Orleans tried to discourage her performance with the New Orleans Pops" - who is her?
11. In the "Economic retaliation" section, the section of the sentence "Norfolk, Virginia—where demonstrators interrupted her presentation so forcefully she began crying, Chicago, and dozens of other cities" - the commas don't seem clear to me. Is there another specific city that could go after "Chicago"?
12. In the "Other locations" section, "future U.S. senator Paula Hawkins" - should the S be capitalized?
13. In the "Seattle" section, the phrase "and in his role as police officer as well as in religion" - in his role in religion?
14. "campaign against Initiative Thirteen was different" - different than what?
15. "Women were highly visible in the campaign, raising about the same amount as men" - same amount of money?
16. In the "Moral Majority" section, "not previously considered in 1974" - maybe move the "in 1974" back to be right after "Equal Rights Amendment"
17. In the "Gay activism" section, the sentence that begins "When gay men tried in several desperate measures..." is a bit run-on.
18. "to protest the FDA's who were delaying" - are there more than one FDA?
19. Now that I look at it, that third paragraph runs a bit far afield from the subject at hand. Maybe the closing paragraph could mention ACT/UP, but somehow bring it back to Anita?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Save Our Children/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looks great! I'm not an expert on images though, and you have a lot of fair use images, so I'm going to ask for a second opinion in that regard. \ / (⁂) 08:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. My understanding of fair use images is also not at an expert level. I was very conscientious for that reason to justify the images in the article, in the text, captions, and the image summaries. Let me know. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I concur that the images are a bit numerous. The donor card in particular does not IMHO add much value to the article and would be the least likely of any of the images to survive a challenge. The captions are also a bit long for each image. I understand what you're doing with that level of detail but I believe they could be trimmed and tightened while still conveying the same information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Otto. My understanding of the dispute here is that there is a question of Fair Use images. There are three FU images: Image:Advocate Cover April 20 1977.jpg, Image:Newsweek Cover June 6 1977.jpg, Image:Anita Bryant Pie October 14 1977.jpg. A fourth, Image:Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges button.jpg is public domain, and I have to change that. The images of the brochure and donor card are public domain. I think what I'm waiting for is another voice on the ruling of the magazine covers in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion - quick note

These are just quick, random checks. Will be more thorough, if needed.

• Incorrect punctuation:

"The ordinance condones immorality and discriminates against my children's rights to grow up in a healthy, decent community".

• Subjective use of language:

eg 'Bryant resented the media depiction of her as hateful, saying that her inspiration came "out of love—not only love for God's commandment and His word, but love for my children and yours. Yes, and even love for all sinners—even homosexuals." '

Are use of strong words like "resented" and "hateful" justified here and NPOV? Seems like you are drawing conclusions that the quote does not support. Can you provide a reliable source using this wording?

• Overly long captions are not balanced in content, but appear to be pushing a POV.

• Undue weight:
• "Violence" section - First para goes on and on about the attack, suit against Bryant etc. but ends only with the statement: "Bryant, Green, Mike Thompson and Save Our Children were dismissed from the suit in November 1977."

What happened to the suit then?

• Subjective language - not encyclopedic:

eg "Several suicides were connected to the campaign, including a Cuban gay activist in Miami named Ovidio "Herbie" Ramos, who was stunned at the vehemence against homosexuals." - "stunned"?

eg. "When gay men tried in several desperate measures to follow established political channels to bring attention to a disease that afflicted the most cast out members of society" - "desperate"?

• Images seem unbalanced and to concentrate on Anita Bryant and do not seem NPOV. Is the image "Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges" NPOV? Is the caption of this image reflective of the image content?: "Campaign material was distributed around the country, reflecting the personal role Anita Bryant played in the campaign."

Is this article really about Anita Bryant?

Are there no images that represent other side to balance the POV ones?

• Clumsy wording - could be improved in style

eg. "The breakdown of the marriage he blames on the pressures put on Bryant, and blames gays and lesbians for his emotional devastation after the divorce:"

• Unclear wording

eg. "She professed being most astonished that they ate each others' sperm, and equated the act with the immorality of destroying the Seed of Life. Bryant also claimed never to have heard of Alfred Kinsey's study that estimated..."

(dictionary.com: "profess" - to lay claim to, often insincerely; pretend to)

Are you saying she was not speaking truthfully?

If so, can you provide a reliable source saying she was being insincerely and merely claiming?

• Novelistic rather than encyclopedic wording:

eg. "Bryant's star power and her extreme views began to seep into national news stories."

Is "seep" in this context an encyclopedic way of describing this?

• Overall, the article does not seem neutral in content but appears to be taking sides and supporting a particular point of view.

These are my reactions to scanning the article. Also, article needs a good copy edit for wording, punctuation etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some responses. My sources are at home, and I am not. I had to return Fred Fejes' book to Interlibrary Loan, wouldn't you know, 30 minutes before you posted this opinion. So I went ahead and bought it. It will take a couple days to arrive. I have everything else.

Can you tell me what POV you think the article is promoting? By reading the talk page, I'm sure you came across my requests for others to give me their opinions on this. No one as yet has given me one, but it was a small sampling.

The issue of overlong captions has been addressed in the previous GA commentary. They are long because I'm justifying the use of the images. Since User:Elcobbola is kind of around, I think I'm going to ask him to weigh in on the issue not only of Non Free images, but their justification in the article and captioning.

I'm not sure how the inclusion of Image:Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges button.jpg is NPOV. Can you expand on that? While the article is not about Bryant alone, it makes a well-cited case that she was the public face of the campaign, and her involvement in it propelled the issue to the national consciousness. People were wearing this button during the time, and it is cited in the article. I do have a bumper sticker that shows the counter view "There is No 'Human Right' to Corrupt Our Children", which I can include, but it reiterates what the brochure already shows. Another bumper sticker at the time read "Kill a Queer for Christ" but I thought that was over the top and it was not condoned by Save Our Children at any rate.

Per several definitions of profess: to declare openly; announce or affirm; avow or acknowledge, or to make a profession, avowal, or declaration. That is the definition intended.

I double-checked the article in NYT and the punctuation in "The ordinance condones immorality and discriminates against my children's rights to grow up in a healthy, decent community". is the same as the source.

Per Bob Green blaming gays: My faith has increased and I think much of that was accomplished by the trauma I suffered and having to reach out to God. For a couple of years I was really devastated," he said. "Blame gay people? I do. Their stated goal was to put [Bryant] out of business and destroy her career. And that's what they did. It's unfair. but I changed the wording of the sentence.

I've changed some wording. I'll look at the others when I get hold of my sources tonight or tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On Bryant "resented the media depiction of her as hateful". I attributed to Fejes. My memory remembers I paraphrased. To work around that until I can get the copy I just purchased, Bryant's autobiography from 1977 says "The media misquoted me, saying I called homosexuals garbage. That was not what I said..." "Criticism from the media was an eye-opener for me. We were quoted and misquoted time after time...The headline in the paper read: ANITA BRYANT CALLS HOMOSEXUALS MURDERERS!"..."There were all kinds of lies and distortions.." (p. 27) On being the brunt of Johnny Carson monologues and a premiere performance of Laugh-In, "By this time in the campaign, it had become obvious to me that very few people in the entertainment industry are willing to search for, and stand up and speak out on, the side of decency." (p. 36) What she said on the Phil Donahue Show: "The hardest thing to do is to convince people I don't hate homosexuals. I pray for them. We would like to help homosexuals..." (p. 67)

On Ovidio "Herbie" Ramos being stunned, I think understates his reaction. Ramos and Gomez basically formed a Cuban arm of the Dade County Coalition for the Humanistic Rights of Gays. It was the first time Cuban homosexuals had made their presence known in Miami. The issue of homosexuality was more about machismo in Cuban culture than it was about theology. It was common practice for Cuban politicians to call opponents maricon. The Cuban branch of Save Our Children flatly refused to go on the air with Ramos and Gomez, so they recorded a statement. Call after call came in degrading the weeks-old political outreach to the gay Cuban community. That night Ramos swallowed Valium and whiskey, but the attempt did not work until a few days later when he shot himself. (Young, 53-54)(Rich, et al)

3rd opinion

Just had a quick check through, and noticed:

• A peer review is still open, and should be closed.
• Biblical is capitalised in the middle of the sentence. According to wiktionary, this is not typical. Double check: it happens more than once.
• "The defeat of the ordinance encouraged groups in other cities that had passed non-discrimination ordinances to attempt to overturn theirs." The that confused me for a second, as to whether it was the groups or the cities. Can it be changed?
• "...sharing many of the same campaign strategies that were used in Miami: connecting homosexuality to child molestation." Many of the strategies means the child molestation link was only one of them? The colon makes it seem like this was the only one - needs a "such as" or "in particular" type linkage.
• "Northwest Baptist Church announced it from the pulpit, concerning one of its members, Anita Bryant, a 36-year-old celebrity singer." Can this be split or recast - my first read through had me thinking that the anouncment concerned Bryant as in being about her, rather than making her feel concern.

I didn't go through with a fine-tooth comb, but overall i think this article meets the GA criteria. Bryant does stick out, but this seems to reflect the sources, who were obviously interested in her as a celebrity face. Showing the badge for example, would only be NPOV or undue weight if other badges had been made for the campaign, and this was used instead of those. But many other involved persons are discussed, so i think that NPOV is not a problem at this level. There is still room for improvment, but i think these are "heading for FA" improvments, rather than needed for GA. Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the dubiously worded passages you highlighted. Thank you for the heads up on those. I have posted a question at WT:GAN regarding having a PR open while the article is nominated for GA. I know there is a specific rule for the for FAC, but I do not see a rule for that for GA nominations. I've asked the folks there to clarify. Thank you for your review. --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pass

Thanks to Yobmod, Matisse for their help with the extra opinions. I'm going to pass the GA. Thanks for the patience Moni3, it has been a long review. \ / (⁂) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Point about No Religious Involvement in Politics Since 1925

Hi. The point that is made in the opening section about no religious involvement since 1925 until Jerry Falwell's resurrection is simply not true. The Catholic Church in the late 1920's, early 30's pushed the adoption of what became the Motion Picture Production Code or Hays Code that censored film through the office of the PCA and via other politically-active means censored book publication and nudity in the U.S... Religious involvement has an ebb and flow in its influence over US history, but has always been a part of politics in America... With Falwell, the Christian infrastructure simply found a new avenue to mobilize their complaints... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is cited in the Moral Majority section from The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance, which conveniently, I do not have with me. I can access it on Monday, however. I have another source I used for this article titled Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America's Debate on Homosexuality that discusses Christian involvement in politics in the 20th century. The author, Fred Fejes, between pages 86 and 87 references the Scopes Trial and a general attitude about political involvement among Christian churches was reflected in the Bible phrase, "My kingdom is not of this world". Some regional blocs of religious involvement were evident with Catholics in the Northeast and Protestant churches in the South. Not until the vast social changes in the 1960s did religious organizations become directly involved on a nation-wide scale, according to the author. Fejes does not mention the Hays Code. I will refer to the cited source when I can get it on Monday to get a clearer view of what the author is referring to. The Hays Code could arguably political, but not overtly, such as what occurred from the Moral Majority in the 1980s. --Moni3 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I did not go to the library when I said. However, I did today and I have the source in front of me that reiterates what Fejes does. Attempts to become involved in politics on a nationwide scale were sporadic. The source specifically mentions Billy James Hargis and Carl McIntyre. But not until the Moral Majority says the source, "were there any long term successful attempts by purely fundamentalist groups to influence politics and to become a permanent power in society to be reckoned with". Ideally, I'd like the dubious tag to be removed, because the claims are supported by two reliable sources. However, if you think it could be reworded to make it clearer, I'm open to suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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)