Talk:Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005-present

Contents

[edit] Banner slogan

PFLAG's history page[1] has the banner slogan as "We Love Our Gay Children."

I don't see it? Benjiboi 12:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for Notable Chapters

Also I'd like to add back in the Queens Chapter under here (1st major LGBT Groups to name a award after an out Bisexual person), it's important in the Bisexual part of modern LGBT history).

Are there any other noteable chapters? Such as what was the first chapeter, etc. All help and answers cheerfully accepted. CyntWorkStuff 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Am wondering if anyone knows what the PFLAG Brisbane thing is about.

[edit] Poor article

Without slapping a million flags on this article, I'll just write that it is poorly written, sourced, and doesn't even really tell me what PFLAG is or what it does as if inherently everyone in the world has common knowledge of it. This might as well be moved to Wikidictionary as a definition for the acronym PFLAG. It also doesn't talk about PFLAG action and controversy in terms of its control over its own chapters and its chapters' activities in their communities. The study of such organizations like P-FLAG is frequently written about in scholarly fields and in newspaper articles. 75.72.162.175 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

References for "controversy in terms of its control over its own chapters and its chapters' activities in their communities" would be helpful. Benjiboi 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PFOX

Is PFOX really an opposition group to PFLAG? It seems like it has its own mission, apart from PFLAG. I'm fixing it, unless there is some source that PFLAG's "popularity triggered creation of an opposition group, PFOX." --Knulclunk (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added refs to address this. Benjiboi 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reporting. I think everything that you added is good, except the opinion that PFOX was founded as a counter to PFLAG; this is the section that came from:

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays admitted to a certain satisfaction about the chaos and hostility between the anti-Gay groups, especially considering, she said, that P-FOX was founded as a counter to P-FLAG. She added that she’s not surprised by current events. "When you try to build something on a foundation of fear and ignorance, I don’t believe it’s going to be lasting," she said of "ex-Gay" ministries.

Hardly a source. It would be better to have reporting that uncovers or a press statement that confirms PFOX's opposition to PFLAG. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Better.... --Knulclunk (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There has to be an encyclopedic way to state that PFOX is aping the name of PFLAG even if we don't speculate why. Benjiboi 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
think section is fine, but should it really be such a large part of THIS article?? if the group has any merit other than as people who are "anti" PFLAG then maybe it should be it's own article with just a minor reference to it CyntWorkStuff (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In a tidy world true, but, in my experience, fully referenced sections that painfully spell out what the culture war-ish issues are tend to be left alone. As the rest of the article grows up around this it will simply be the first section that matured. Nothing stops vandalistic deletions like referenced material and until it is referenced it tends to get picked at and watered down. I've learned to use quotes and let the refs speak for themselves. In this case the rest of the article now needsa the same treatment. Benjiboi 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
good point, and the article as a whole certainly does need to be beefed-up, I've notices that so many times reasonably inoffensive and ubiquitous entities (or at least to the LGBT & Str8 Allied Communities) like PFLAG get short shrift because they are just "there" and taken for granted - the old "sky is blue" thing CyntWorkStuff (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair PFLAG by its nature isn't flashy so sources are out there. (I bet some books too) Benjiboi 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)