Talk:GLAAD

message: So, all three articles are stubs - by merging we can reduce the amount of stubs related to this particle article topic, GLAAD. The primary reason that I proposed this instead of simply being bold and doing it is that there might be other GLAAD-associated stubs in Wikipedia that I am unaware of and need help finding. And if someone objects, that's a lot of wasted time on my part. Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partial merge performed -- Vanguard Awards into GLAAD Media Awards. Continuing to consider merge of Media Awards into GLAAD. ZueJay (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that they should be merged.--Larrybet 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think merging still makes sense, plus a list of all award winners, perhaps, similar to the current page. Keep the sub-pages for individual award years. Pnm (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know this is an old thread, but I just found it.  I expanded the GLAAD Media Award page a few months ago (and was careful to source everything properly, etc) so I would be a definite Opposed vote on merging the pages.  I remember when I wrote the GLAAD Media Award article that it was basically just a "list" of winners, so I can understand why this proposal was made, but I'm just leaving a note here to update that the GLAAD Media Award page has been expanded since this discussion began.  The rewritten GLAAD Media Award page has already gotten an an automatic "C-rating" on the quality scale since I wrote it and has yet to be verified to see if it meets the "B" criteria (from past experience I know that all pages that look good at a glance get an automatic "C rating" until someone can actually take the time to read the entire article and check all the sources, so it might even rank as a "B" once it's checked.)  No offense to the people who wrote this page (it looks decently written), but this page doesn't look well sourced, and I honestly don't want what's here bringing down the quality rating over there because of this page's lack of verifiable sources.  I have a full plate right now, but I might try and take a look to see if I can improve this page at some point down the line, but my personal area of "expertise" is more "celebrity" culture and "awards" articles, so if anyone knows of some reliable sources about the history of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (apart from the awards), they can just paste the links to the sources here on the talk page and it would make the work of improving this article a lot easier for me (or anyone else who comes along and gets the chance to rework this page before I do.) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: This article is essentially a GLAAD ass-kissing fest even though they've faced enormous amounts of criticism throughout their existence. This article desperately needs coverage of that criticism to balance things out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.174.77 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to insert it. Guinsberg (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

text: HAHAHA as if it would stay on the page. The crazy Wikipedia censors would immediatly remove that. This is a political page you know. So there is special attention from the Wikipedia censors. Just look at the people that are trying to put some info on this page about the Duck dynasty controversy. It MAY stay on here for about a minute until the censor removes it. Some tips on getting some info from Wikipedia: read the talk pages first, skip the article and go to view history. Normally the article just gets bigger over time, if you see an edit where the article decreases in size something was removed: check that out... Just read what was removed. And all of a sudden Wikipedia is a very interesting site, like it was before the government censors moved in.
No, reading the talk pages is little different. Largely same liberals that should be supporting freedom of expression are diametrically opposed regardless of whether it is on a main page or in a talk section.
I agree. GLADD also likes to be PC to the point of censorship and now it seems as though GLADD is all about Trans people yet does nothing for bisexuals, gay men, or lesbians.72.78.246.42 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Find reliable sources that speak directly to any controversies and you likely will be able to add neutral information about it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  violates NPOV 

message: The acronym GLAAD is just one more proof that the term gay is not a gender neutral term.  It's guys, end of discussion.  And, otherwise, LGBT would be just GBT.Godofredo29 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , you need to stop going around complaining about what you view as misuse of the term gay, as you did here, here, here and here. Wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion; they are to be used to improve whatever article is in question. See WP:Not a forum. But, for the record, while gay is not gender neutral to you, it is clearly gender neutral to many people. The Gay article addresses its different usages. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

text: , you are stating your opinion with regard to the term gay not being gender neutral; it is not a fact, as is easily seen by WP:Reliable sources in the Gay article and elsewhere (on or off Wikipedia). Yes, some lesbians dislike the term lesbian and prefer the term gay; if you want to know why, you can Google it. Yes, the term same-sex marriage is preferred over the term gay marriage by a lot of people, which can be for any number of reasons; one reason is the topic of transgender people. People might be of the same sex but not identify as gay; in these cases, the term same-sex marriage is more accurate than the term gay marriage. Stating that the term gay is not gender neutral is obviously an opinion. And like I stated, you need to stop using Wikipedia talk pages to express that opinion unless it is specifically to improve the Wikipedia article in question. If you continue to do so, I will report you at WP:ANI. And as for contacting you via email, I did not email you; I contacted you via your talk page. If you got an email message alerting you of my having WP:Pinged you and/or my having commented on your talk page, that is not the same thing as me emailing you. And you can change your email preferences by clicking on "Preferences" at the top of the screen while on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof That Gay Not A Gender Neutral Term

message: What did you do to this article?! 
Now it is not an article but a disaster! Донат Николай (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Disaster 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GLAAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015085839/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/barnett_a.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/barnett_a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinnamorato/sandbox
I added some info on the president Sarah Kate Ellis and the work she did for GLAAD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnamorato (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Draft for Mass Comm. Course- please review/give feedback

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinnamorato/sandboxTimothy Cecere (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback Provided for Mass Comm. Article Draft in Peer Review

message: In the section "Movements", there is a sentence that reads "In 2016, Spirit Day is the world's largest and most-visible anti-bullying campaign." This sentence is grammatically incorrect but has 2 different meanings that it could possibly be changed to. Either:
"Since 2016, Spirit Day has been the world's largest and most-visible anti-bullying campaign."
or
"In 2016, Spirit Day was the world's largest and most-visible anti-bullying campaign."
If someone could find a source proving the top statement, then I would suggest the change. KieranStanley (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to the latter. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Gays and Lesbians Against Drunk Driving. 72.72.204.23 (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a notable organisation? If so, feel free to start writing. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't this that organization even exists. Sounds like a line from Legally Blonde. Irregardless, even if it does exist, GLAAD has nothing to do with it; they just share a similar name. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that  redirects here. Primefac (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a separate page for GLADD