Talk:Rainbow party (sexuality)

message: Gawd I wish there were rainbow parties when I was a kid. There probably have been now that old people thought it up and told kids there peers were already doing it. It's like the South Park episode on cheesing. News reports always tell parents about scarcely-done shit their kids've never heard of. 
::They don't exist. The closest to it is 'linking', which is nothing more than not really committed relationships and something which has been happening for decades. You'd have had a much higher chance of having a genuine 'rainbow party' in the 60's.
-- Ewen LaSalle
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.135.180 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gawd

message: "According to the same report, teenage girls are also competing to see who can have the most babies with black men in an attempt to irritate parental guardians of foster homes."
This is entire article is someone a.) having a joke and playing along with chat shows b.) entirely made up by the show.
The statement above in particular is just utter rubbish! And abhorrently engineered to exploit racism via the younger generation.
The fact it has produced offspring to irritate parents (the book, this article) is not of much importance. There are endless minor hoaxes that simply don't get mentioned and certainly wouldn't be put forward as a possible 'fact' on here regardless of some people on blogs mentioning them or writing a book about it. Writing a book does not make it fact or worthwhile, or even reliable. But it does generate money if it's controversial enough and related to Operah.
How many minutes do you think it'd be before every teenage boy was boasting about having been to a 'rainbow party'? 3? At best.
When day time chat shows become your reliable reference, you have serious problems.
It's not important enough, it's almost certainly something made up by the show, the few mentions and book aren't interesting enough, or valid references. Should go back up for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.135.180 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Come on!

message: What is the purpose of the link to Urban Dictionary? Is it to show that the reality of the practice is doubted? I think the article itself, along with the other links, is plenty sufficient to give the reader a clear picture. I'm sure if someone wants to see a host of smart-aleck wannabe comedians trying to define the term, they'll know where to go. Why not just throw Urban Dictionary links up everywhere? Any objections, or should I take it out? --BDD 07:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Urban Dictionary

message: :
:In the fall semester of 2004, a rainbow party supposedly occured among members of the freshmen class at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, Kansas. The scandal spread around to the entire student body and eventually to the entire city of Wichita, which was eager to devour any rumors about Kapaun High School, which is generally considered snobbish and elitist. Soon, schools across the state of Kansas became aware of this supposed rainbow party, chanting "Rainbow Party" and "Skittles" at Kapaun sporting events. Today, many believe the rainbow party incident was grossly exaggerated and that it was an unfair reflection on the morality of Kapaun Mt. Carmel.
...even if it were referenced it would almost certainly be insufficiently notable for a paragraph in an encyclopedia article. If there were sourced coverage in news media, press releases by school officials or anything, it might just merit a sentence and an exemplary external link or two; as it is, I doubt there's even that. Samaritan 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Party Scandals (removed section) 

message: This article (as well as the other "chicken party" article) smacks of media sensationalism.  Not everything that is discussed on Oprah is worthy of a Wikipedia entry.  Where is the evidence that this trend is widespread and notable, and furthermore that this terminology is widely used?  These are important criteria for deciding whether it merits an article. --Charles 04:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the article.  The book alone might get an article, and there are plenty of other media references.  We need not demonstrate the "trend is widespread" because they couldn't do that for autocunnilingus either. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a completely inaccurate comparison. One is a technical term for a form of autoeroticism that has been in existence since the dawn of (wo)mankind, the other is a cooked-up term used to describe an alleged group sex event that was fueled by moral panic and was popular a couple of years tops. 24.126.199.129 11:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a valid article about a subject which involves media sensationalism.  Nothing wrong with the article, although plenty with the subject. Maikel (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media sensationalism 

message: Rainbow party (sexuality), Chicken party, and Hooky party should all be merged into the same article. It doesn't matter how many "books" are written about each one (and so far as I know, only two were written), they're still all the same thing: unimportant, single-instance, moral panic terms that were used to describe alleged teen sex acts. I'm not asking for a deletion of these articles, but I am saying that we should be reasonable and not have three separate articles for essentially the same thing. Possible article renames: Teen group sex terms, Moral panic group sex terms, etc. 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support 24.126.199.129 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment  Those terms used to be in this article (see history), and they were removed from it.  The concept of a rainbow party is certainly worthy of its own wiki article, given all the hulabaloo about it (especially the book), but I don't think the other topics deserve much more than a mention at the bottom of this page. --TexasDex 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support, but not to a title with terms in it, since we should be discussing the concept.  I'd support merging it into sex party, as a sub-section discussing allegations (by Oprah and others) of widespread teen sex parties, and evidence or lack of evidence for (or evidence against) such things. --Delirium 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, this sounds like a good argument for a Teen Group Sex category, not for an article merge.  The subject matter seems discrete enough, and significant in its own way if only for being so memorable.  cf.  WP is not a paper encyclopedia Bdrasin 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose some material here would be out of place in a larger and more indisciminate article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Support there's no need for specific articles about basically the same thing repeated.  They aren't, by themselves, notable past a couple years. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I reverted what appeared to be some sort of vandalism (see history), but retained a speedy-deletion template that had been placed after the vandalism. It's possible that that template was placed with a mistaken assumption that the vandalism was the real article. But, seeing as there has been previous discussion on the usefulness of this article, I wasn't sure. 69.95.237.253 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right, anon.  I removed the tag. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Is there any solid, legitimate evidence of this act having ever occurred at any time? --Zantolak 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --71.41.220.149 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: So, who was the expert who supposedly spilled the beans on Oprah?  Was it Dr Drew Pinsky? Maikel (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert

message: The link to Oprah.com appears to be broken (http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200310/tows_past_20031002.jhtml).  Currently there's no reference proving that the topic was mentioned on Oprah; the NY Times article cited as evidence doesn't quite state that it was.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite for appearance on Oprah

message: this article, while probably deserving of an article, does not address the subject matter from a neutral perspective. 72.255.39.132 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way? Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every way? The article is dripping with "supposedly"s but there isn't any in article content that disproves what was on the oprah show.--Crossmr (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: They referenced "rainbow parties" on the show, which aired July 12, 2010, including that "purity club members do it because they can still have sex, but as long as they keep the "front door shut" they did it with "god's approval""  Probably more controversial a comment than the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.58.228 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard Times of RJ Berger (MTV) 

message: "On May 27, 2010 the television program The Doctors discussed the topic with dozens of teens, parents, and professionals."
Dozens of people on one program?  CBHA (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dozens 

message: at 12:00 --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a legend