Talk:Anita Bryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is part of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a WikiProject related to beauty pageants, their contestants and winners.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents 1 A gay son? 2 Stub 3 NPOV? 3.1 Discrimination? 3.2 +Bryant, -hater 4 Do we really need that last bit? 5 Removed "back when Florida was reliably Democratic" 6 More to the story? 7 Last section? 8 Besides Florida? 9 "beginning of religious right" 10 politically slanted description?

[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)

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)

[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).