Talk:NYC Pride March

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGBT Pride March (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207025912/http://www.queerty.com/the-gay-pride-issue-20070618/ to http://www.queerty.com/the-gay-pride-issue-20070618/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT Pride March (New York City). 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/20110712215328/http://homolexis.com/glossary/index.php/Pride_%28trope%29 to http://homolexis.com/glossary/index.php/Pride_%28trope%29
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20060214163344/www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/
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) 17:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New York City LGBT Pride March. 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  tag to http://www.nycpride.org/about.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214163344/http://www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/ to http://www.bisquish.com/squishive/2005/07/27/in-memoriam-brenda-howard-2/
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) 12:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Moving this list here, in case others want to source these claims for a separate article on "notable performers" at the annual Pride festival. — HipLibrarianship talk 20:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of performers 

message: Heritage of Pride mentions 500 participants at an event—"Gay Power" demonstration and candlelight vigil—occurring "one month after" the riots; see this event page for example.  Other sources seem to be recycling similar claims and language.  I've included it in this article, but the July 1969 event could really benefit from better sourcing. — HipLibrarianship talk 04:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An account of this demonstration and march (no candles mentioned, per se) was published as "Gay Power Hits Back" in The Village Voice; ref now incorporated into article. — HipLibrarianship talk 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  rally and vigil in July 1969 

message: Here is a one-sentence version with a footnote for those who want the numbers:
====comments on Option B====
* I definitely prefer this to A, but I still don't think it would be helpful to add to the article. The main reason is just that I don't think it provides much marginal benefit in terms of reader understanding - I think the existing text already does a fine job of conveying information about the parade's relative size. The other reason is that it's arguably engaging in WP:OR. None of the sources actually say NYC is the second-largest pride parade in the world. Colin M (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Option B

message: * I definitely prefer this to A, but I still don't think it would be helpful to add to the article. The main reason is just that I don't think it provides much marginal benefit in terms of reader understanding - I think the existing text already does a fine job of conveying information about the parade's relative size. The other reason is that it's arguably engaging in WP:OR. None of the sources actually say NYC is the second-largest pride parade in the world. Colin M (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: comments on Option B

message: ====Comments on Option C====
*Support: Sufficiently sourced and to the point. I think the footnote us probably superfluous, but its not a big issue insofar as the extraneous discussion of São Paulo's exact figures is at least kept out of the main body of the article. Snow let's rap
*Support Summoned by a bot. Short and sweet, easy to understand what is being compared and all info is sufficently sourced. Comatmebro (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Option C

message: *Support: Sufficiently sourced and to the point. I think the footnote us probably superfluous, but its not a big issue insofar as the extraneous discussion of São Paulo's exact figures is at least kept out of the main body of the article. Snow let's rap
*Support Summoned by a bot. Short and sweet, easy to understand what is being compared and all info is sufficently sourced. Comatmebro (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Option C

message: ====Comments on Option D====
*Mild oppose I think this strays too far from the concern of informing the reader about the article's subject: the NYC Pride March. The article already has a link to List of largest LGBT events - if a reader wants to know about the sizes of other pride events, they can click that. If it were possible to include a very brief, verifiable comparison (e.g. "NYC Pride is the second-largest pride march in the world, after that of Sau Paulo."), I think that would be fine. But because the facts are more complicated, and the comparison requires a caveat ("with the exception of 2019") and an explanatory footnote, it turns into an awkward excrescence. Colin M (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please refrain from the bad faith assumptions; I’ve tried to address every thoughtful concern presented even if I sharply disagreed.There remains no reason similar content cannot be in multiple articles.If you have anything constructive to add that is certainly welcome. If you will never support the content sobeit. Thank you for offering feedback. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry  striking my unproductive comment now, and I regret any hurt feelings. I sincerely trust your contributions are offered in good faith.  Indeed your addition of the Size section to this article paved the way for an overall improvement.  Still, I maintain the São Paulo details are a definite digression here. — HipLibrarianship talk 01:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *No problem, thank you for addressing this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Option D

message: *Mild oppose I think this strays too far from the concern of informing the reader about the article's subject: the NYC Pride March. The article already has a link to List of largest LGBT events - if a reader wants to know about the sizes of other pride events, they can click that. If it were possible to include a very brief, verifiable comparison (e.g. "NYC Pride is the second-largest pride march in the world, after that of Sau Paulo."), I think that would be fine. But because the facts are more complicated, and the comparison requires a caveat ("with the exception of 2019") and an explanatory footnote, it turns into an awkward excrescence. Colin M (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please refrain from the bad faith assumptions; I’ve tried to address every thoughtful concern presented even if I sharply disagreed.There remains no reason similar content cannot be in multiple articles.If you have anything constructive to add that is certainly welcome. If you will never support the content sobeit. Thank you for offering feedback. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm sorry  striking my unproductive comment now, and I regret any hurt feelings. I sincerely trust your contributions are offered in good faith.  Indeed your addition of the Size section to this article paved the way for an overall improvement.  Still, I maintain the São Paulo details are a definite digression here. — HipLibrarianship talk 01:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *No problem, thank you for addressing this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Option D

message: I was going to offer this for further simplification:
Upon further consideration, my opinion is that the comparison with Brazil should not be included anywhere in the main text, but could be mentioned in a footnote. The text in the 'Size' section as now written only discusses the NYC size and makes no attempt to compare it with others. The very first sentence of the article already links to the List of LGBT events. I agree with comments that the comparison is a distraction, irrelevant to this article and unnecessary, and frankly, seems only to be an effort to insert a promotion for the Brazil event. DonFB (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The size section was designed to make comparisons to other events in the city as well as to other Pride events in North America, and worldwide. Since it’s the original Pride march it’s surprising that it’s the second largest to São Paulo. The size of the event ties into its notability; it’s impactful affecting large parts of the nation’s largest city. That’s the point of all Pride parades, to show that the LGBTQ communities are a significant part of society and can’t be ignored. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The kernel of your comment, and your apparent justification for wanting to mention the Brazil march, is:  If we applied that standard to making comparisons, we might have examples like: "even though the Wright Brothers built the first airplane, theirs is not the biggest"...or..."Even though some scholars consider Damascus the oldest city in the world, it is not the largest...." and so on. I'm not sure precisely which term from formal logic covers these comparisons, but non sequitur seems to come close. One further response to your comment: the NY march needs no comparison to Sao Paulo or anywhere else to secure its Notability. DonFB (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Option E