Talk:Anita Bryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] +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)

Anita Bryant made a career out of hating gay people so it should be a large section of her biography. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] "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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 McKaytalk 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)

[edit] Unreferenced material removed

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.--Docg 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.--Docg 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.--Docg 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)