Talk:Straight flag

Question

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Can you explain your concerns with my change? Apologies for the duplicated references, I was about to fix those when you reverted me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't understand why did you rewrite the whole last paragraph, replacing the sources. I see you added useful new text, but that could have been added without rewriting the paragraph and removing previous information and sources. I am also opposed to moving the super straight flag there, I think it's better if all of them are simply put together in the same place (and in my screen, the image breaks into the gallery section), but you are right in that it might be excessive to call it one of the most used straight flags, so I rewrote the first sentence of the section, are you fine with it? Super Ψ Dro 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem with the image remaining in the gallery so long as the text is changed. I'll try again with my edit to see if I can merge it in a little more carefully, and then post here to see if you're satisfied with it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Super Ψ Dro 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you have any concerns; I think I avoided duplicating refs this time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't think it makes much sense to make a straight pride subsection when pretty much all of these flags are used in the same context. The black and white flag has probably been more widely used than the blue and pink one or the Russian ones. I also wanted to make a paragraph only for each set of similar flags. I understand you made the straight ally flag a separate paragraph as to put it aside from what other flags may stand for, but these flags have a lot of variations, and making one variety apart could set a precedent for the others and make the article a mess. Also, is "super straight" capitalized? I just searched the TikTok of the original creator of the movement and he didn't use any upper case. Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you're right in that the source does not say that the black and white flag is the most common straight flag, but the article chose that one as "the Straight Pride Flag", that's why I wrote it that way. Do you have any idea for a better wording of the sentence? There's scarce information about these early straight flags, and I don't know how else to introduce it in the text without saying it is the most common one. And from what I've seen, this is the earliest one, I tried to indirctly imply this by saying the variation with grey was from the 2000s. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why you don't think there should be a straight pride subsection—that those paragraphs all describe flags' usage in straight pride contexts would seem to me to be an argument for the section rather than against one.

No, I don't believe "super straight" is normally capitalized.

Unless there are sources that describe multiple straight flags and their relative usage, or unless one flag is far more prominently mentioned in sourcing than others, I think we should probably avoid trying to describe one flag as the primary or most commonly-used flag. I don't think any of these flags are particularly widely used, so it's probably a tough call to say which is the most prominent. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is that all flags (except the ally flag) have been used at some point in the context of straight pride, the New Brunswick one being a sourced example, and a straight pride subsection excludes these flags. I could perhaps try to find sources for the white and black flag having been used in straight pride marches but I am not sure if I'll succeed in this.

We agree on the second point so I've changed all mentions of super straight to lower case.

I don't have a problem with avoiding to describe the flag as such. How could the text be rewritten in a way that the text is still fluid and without mentioning facts not present in the sources (so the tag can be removed)? Super Ψ Dro 23:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough—I've removed the section heading. I've also reworded the "most common" sentence to avoid that claim. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Great. Glad that we've discussed this out. Super Ψ Dro 08:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Super Straight "trend"

Is it me or some infos are missing, I believe that Kyle Royce made the Superstraight movement. He hated it after he found out it's been to 4Chan. It's funny how Super Straight is often compared to PornHub logo while the Black and Orange is often associated with Halloween.Kurt R.✉ 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is not about the super straight movement, we don't need to get into much depth about it here. Super Ψ Dro 14:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Horizontally-striped black and white flag

Unfortunately, File:Heterosexual flag (black-white stripes).svg etc. is basically a flag designed for straight people by gay people. Some might object to it on that basis, or because it reminds them of zebra stripes or prison uniforms. A straight flag actually designed by straight people, and gaining some degree of acceptance among the heterosexual population, would probably be quite different... AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see the header at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." GorillaWarfare (she/her  o  talk) 21:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That isn't too relevant, since it should be fairly obvious that I'm cautioning against the flag being presented on the article as something it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me you were suggesting a change, but thank you for making it so. However, the article doesn't say anything about the flag aside from that "One straight flag is composed of black and white strips, with a design similar to the rainbow LGBT pride flag." That is all supported by the source, and it makes no mention of who supposedly designed it, or how well-accepted it is among the heterosexual population. If you have reliable sources discussing either of those topics, feel free to mention them. GorillaWarfare (she/her  o  talk) 00:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Cautions are better delivered directly and backed with sources. Otherwise they hold no value. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the cautionary note because the brief caption to the image in this article doesn't fully indicate what it is, and because on another Wikipedia article the image was presented as being something which it's actually not. That very strong probability that this is a flag devised by gay people for straight people follows from the fact that the gay rainbow flag was taken as the starting point, modified by insulting symbolism -- i.e. reducing the rainbow to monochrome, with an end result strongly reminiscent of prison uniforms -- while whole other areas of available symbolism (such as pink and blue, mars and venus, etc etc) were completely ignored... 22:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk o contribs)

I clarified the main text a bit. The source is clear about the nature of this flag - it was indeed derived from the gay pride flag, but as a negative reaction to it by 'straight pride' activists. Due to the aesthetic issues you note, it's a self-insult if you ask me. But the source is also clear that it is not a flag that represents straight people in general or in a neutral way. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We already kind of went through this at Talk:Straight_pride#File:Heterosexual_flag_(black-white_stripes).svg. That "source" may be considered somewhat informative as to the meanings of flags, but it presents no evidence whatsoever for its version of the claimed origin of the horizontally-striped black and white flag, which is in fact rather implausible. It's much more likely that the horizontally-striped black and white flag was invented to supply the background to the "gay ally" flag than it was invented as a straight pride flag (since the visual symbolism used would be more appropriate to a straight shame flag than a straight pride flag, among other reasons) -- though of course, some people may eventually have used it as such because of misinformation on various websites and/or Wikipedia (see xkcd cartoon "Citogenesis"). AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert

GorillaWarfare, I see this as nothing but pointless nitpicking. It does not improve the article in any way and by choosing to go fully with what the article says instead of attributing claims, the neutrality of the article is affected. I will note that there's a Wikipedia policy for attributing charged claims, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." And yes, the source is biased. It starts talking about the straight flag as "We’ve saved the worst for last.", continues with "It stands for a narrow group of straight people who, mysteriously, feel threatened by LGBT+ people’s existence and want to protest against us." and then with "The straight flag’ is designed to encourage hate and create division." It is clear that the source is emotional with the topic. I guess that a better way of following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would be to directly attribute the claim to Gay Star News. "Among the several existing straight flags exists one composed of alternating black and white strips, with a design similar to the rainbow LGBT pride flag. According to Gay Star News, it was created to represent straight pride and to act as an countermovement to gay pride." What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 09:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not describing a statement of opinion, though, you're describing a simple statement where attribution doesn't make sense. Writing that "It may have been created to..." suggests that there is doubt in that statement, however you have provided no sources to contradict the GSN statement, and so presenting it in that way is misleading. You and a few others on this talk page seem to be of the opinion that the flag was created by some other group of people or for some other purpose than what is stated in the source, but until you have RS to support this, it shouldn't affect the article text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

My new proposal removed "may" and similar forms from the text. No doubt is being made now. "You and a few others on this talk page seem to be of the opinion that the flag was created by some other group of people or for some other purpose than what is stated in the source" I am just not blindly trusting a source that is biased about a controversial topic. Super Ψ Dro 09:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to blindly trust it, but you do need to show that there is doubt in RS before reflecting doubt in the article wording. As for attribution, it doesn't make sense; it would be like saying "According to Gay Star News, red is a color." If there is contradictory RS, then it would be totally reasonable to make it clear in the RS that there is conflicting information about the origin or meaning of the flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of this article in LGBT templates, inclusion of those templates on this page

This article was being included in {{LGBT symbols}} and {{LGBT}}, which makes no sense since being straight is not itself something that falls under the LGBT umbrella. I see Super Dromaeosaurus has just reverted my change and so I'm beginning a discussion here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Cisgender is included in Template:Transgender sidebar, but cisgender doesn't fall under transgender umbrella either. — Tazuco 00:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see the argument for heterosexuality or cisgender being included in {{LGBT}} (and it is) since that has sections for the whole spectrum of gender and sexual identities, but calling the straight flag an "LGBT symbol" makes no sense. The straight pride flags are an anti-LGBT symbol, maybe, and an ally flag is a symbol supportive of LGBT people, but neither are LGBT symbols. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm agree. That template is for LGBT symbols, as its name implies, and removing the "straight flag" from it was the correct thing to do as it is not an LGBT symbol, just an intentional mockery of one. I can see why some people thought it was right to include the template here while this article was part of the template but, now that it isn't, that reasoning is moot. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Biased information

This article is written in such a way as to indirectly form an association between the use of straight flags and Putin and Russia, which is now widely considered, at least in large parts of the western world, to be an aggressive and negative force. The way the article is written appears to be largely biased and could be offensive to a large part of the population. EEFAE2E14 (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it does, as other usages are also present and there is no POV wording. However, it might help to put the usages of that flag in a subsection for the sake fo organisation? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That was the original organization of the flags, but someone changed it. There should be a discussion into this so as not to have a back and forth. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

My suggestion is to add to the page another Straight Pride Flag called the Family Values Flag which conservatives are now using in response to the LGBTQ community's Pride Flag. It depicts a man, woman, and children in the center of a heart to represent heterosexual pride. www.familyvaluesflag.com FaithandFamily7 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We cannot add any random straight flag that people create on the Internet. We need sources for adding this one. If no sources talk about it then it's irrelevant. Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have anything to demonstrate that this flag is actually notable? You seem to have registered an account solely to make this suggestion and your username is similar to that of the organisation promoting this flag. If you are associated with them then please understand that we are not here to help your flag become notable. We can only write about it once it already is. Also, please consider that inclusion in this article is no badge of honour. While we write about this topic neutrally, it is unlikely that the average reader perceives these flags positively. If I were seeking to promote heterosexuality in a positive way, one of my objectives would be to try to keep my flag and logo well away from articles like this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

At least that flag, however little notable, was invented by straight people for straight people, while the black and white striped flag given first position on the article now was invented by non-straight people (to be a background for the ally flag)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I was today years old when I learned about fog bow with all the "even rainbow got tired of all of this" comments. 2A00:1370:81A2:4024:2D43:5AE7:2ADF:F330 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is consensus about straight pride?

Things seem to remain fairly ambiguous as to whether "straight pride" is generally recognized as hate speech. The Proud Boys generally promote the notion that we should be as accepting of "straight pride" as we are of "gay pride", thus asserting it as a legitimate cause for celebration.

My problem is that I can't read the tea leaves (which arguably, at least, is the goal of groups that seek to disparage "Gay Pride" celebrations). So to condense the issue as much as possible, is "straight pride" recognized as a "false equivalence" to "gay pride", or is it considered to be a valid equivalence to it? Fabrickator (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The concept of a "Straight Flag" is illogical and unnecessary for several reasons.

The concept of a "Straight Flag" is illogical and unnecessary for several reasons. Firstly, heterosexuality is the societal default and majority orientation, inherently represented in media, laws, and cultural norms. Unlike marginalized groups, heterosexual individuals have not faced systemic exclusion or discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation, making a specific flag redundant.LGBTQ+ flags, such as the Pride flag, were created to provide visibility and solidarity for communities facing discrimination, promoting inclusivity and acceptance. The need for these symbols arises from historical and ongoing oppression, which is not applicable to heterosexual individuals. The creation of a "Straight Flag" fails to acknowledge the context in which minority flags are used and risks being perceived as antagonistic or mocking towards LGBTQ+ communities, potentially fostering division rather than understanding.Moreover, the idea of a "Straight Flag" involves logical fallacies such as false equivalence, as it equates the need for LGBTQ+ flags with heterosexual representation, despite differing societal needs. It also risks a slippery slope argument, leading to demands for other majority identity symbols that lack historical or cultural necessity.Ultimately, advocating for a "Straight Flag" ignores the broader social context and challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, diminishing the unique significance of Pride symbols. Inclusivity is about acknowledging and celebrating diversity, particularly for those who have been historically marginalized, not creating equal symbols for all orientations. Thus, a "Straight Flag" is not only illogical but also undermines efforts to promote inclusivity and acceptance. Pog1990 (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- the straight flag most commonly encountered on-line (the ugly horizontal black and white stripes) was almost certainly invented by non-straight people as part of the background to the "Straight Ally" flag. As I've pointed out several times, a heterosexual flag invented by actual heterosexual people would almost certainly make use of the rich symbolisms of Mars and Venus, or pink and blue, etc. etc., and would not invoke prison uniforms, zebra stripes, or pedestrian crossings. So your anger seems a little misdirected... AnonMoos (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed section 1

Suggestion: Shouldn't the "straight ally" cited as reference 17 be moved to the "Ally" section rather than the "Online" where it currently is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.79.46 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)