Talk:Rainbow party (sexuality)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Legitimacy of term
"Oprah invited a guest which obviously was very 'hip' and 'in with the kids' and could easily infiltrate those naughty secretive teens to see what they were really doing."
This makes the article a little non-neutral to me. Any comments?
ParticleMan 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- The text in question (which has since been removed) seems almost sarcastic. But it's been dealt with, and really it's not the problem I have with this article.
- My problem with this article is that after consulting with even the sluttiest of my friends none of them had ever been to or even heard of anybody going to a so-called "rainbow party". In fact none of them had even heard of a "rainbow party" except from Oprah Winfrey. Looking on Urban Dictionary has that sentiment worded in even stronger terms. I think the statement "data is scarce" isn't strong enough. This is at most a fad that happened at one high school somewhere and only managed to gain notoriety in the minds of scared parents because it ended up on a TV show. IMHO if l0de Radio Hour can be VFD'd this certainly deserves it--TexasDex June 28, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
- I agree....no one I have talked to has ever heard of this. It is, however, a book and was mentioned on the Oprah and if the article should be deleted, so be it. I would rather change the "data is scarse" to something like "data is non-existant" or something like that. What do you think?
- This is an urban myth and should be marked as such immediately. Matthew McVickar July 1, 2005 17:22 (UTC)
[edit] Link to Urban Dictionary
What is the purpose of the link to Urban Dictionary? Is it to show that the reality of the practice is doubted? I think the article itself, along with the other links, is plenty sufficient to give the reader a clear picture. I'm sure if someone wants to see a host of smart-aleck wannabe comedians trying to define the term, they'll know where to go. Why not just throw Urban Dictionary links up everywhere? Any objections, or should I take it out? --BDD 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... to tell you the truth, that was the first time I ever looked at the external links, and yes, the Urban Dictionary one is kind of trashy. It does corroborate the skepticism in the article, but it doesn't look like an extremely reliable source. It's not material to incorporate into the article. All in all, I wouldn't object if you removed it, but I don't see an urgent need to remove it either. CanadianCaesar 09:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rainbow Party Scandals (removed section)
- {{Unreferencedsect}}
- In the fall semester of 2004, a rainbow party supposedly occured among members of the freshmen class at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, Kansas. The scandal spread around to the entire student body and eventually to the entire city of Wichita, which was eager to devour any rumors about Kapaun High School, which is generally considered snobbish and elitist. Soon, schools across the state of Kansas became aware of this supposed rainbow party, chanting "Rainbow Party" and "Skittles" at Kapaun sporting events. Today, many believe the rainbow party incident was grossly exaggerated and that it was an unfair reflection on the morality of Kapaun Mt. Carmel.
...even if it were referenced it would almost certainly be insufficiently notable for a paragraph in an encyclopedia article. If there were sourced coverage in news media, press releases by school officials or anything, it might just merit a sentence and an exemplary external link or two; as it is, I doubt there's even that. Samaritan 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Media sensationalism
This article (as well as the other "chicken party" article) smacks of media sensationalism. Not everything that is discussed on Oprah is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Where is the evidence that this trend is widespread and notable, and furthermore that this terminology is widely used? These are important criteria for deciding whether it merits an article. --Charles 04:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the article. The book alone might get an article, and there are plenty of other media references. We need not demonstrate the "trend is widespread" because they couldn't do that for autocunnilingus either. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a completely inaccurate comparison. One is a technical term for a form of autoeroticism that has been in existence since the dawn of (wo)mankind, the other is a cooked-up term used to describe an alleged group sex event that was fueled by moral panic and was popular a couple of years tops. 24.126.199.129 11:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Rainbow party (sexuality), Chicken party, and Hooky party should all be merged into the same article. It doesn't matter how many "books" are written about each one (and so far as I know, only two were written), they're still all the same thing: unimportant, single-instance, moral panic terms that were used to describe alleged teen sex acts. I'm not asking for a deletion of these articles, but I am saying that we should be reasonable and not have three separate articles for essentially the same thing. Possible article renames: Teen group sex terms, Moral panic group sex terms, etc. 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Those terms used to be in this article (see history), and they were removed from it. The concept of a rainbow party is certainly worthy of its own wiki article, given all the hulabaloo about it (especially the book), but I don't think the other topics deserve much more than a mention at the bottom of this page. --TexasDex 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support, but not to a title with terms in it, since we should be discussing the concept. I'd support merging it into sex party, as a sub-section discussing allegations (by Oprah and others) of widespread teen sex parties, and evidence or lack of evidence for (or evidence against) such things. --Delirium 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, this sounds like a good argument for a Teen Group Sex category, not for an article merge. The subject matter seems discrete enough, and significant in its own way if only for being so memorable. cf. WP is not a paper encyclopedia Bdrasin 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose some material here would be out of place in a larger and more indisciminate article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion
I reverted what appeared to be some sort of vandalism (see history), but retained a speedy-deletion template that had been placed after the vandalism. It's possible that that template was placed with a mistaken assumption that the vandalism was the real article. But, seeing as there has been previous discussion on the usefulness of this article, I wasn't sure. 69.95.237.253 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You were right, anon. I removed the tag. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
