Talk:PFLAG

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Banner slogan

PFLAG's history page[1] has the banner slogan as "We Love Our Gay Children."

I don't see it? Benjiboi 12:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for Notable Chapters

Also I'd like to add back in the Queens Chapter under here (1st major LGBT Groups to name a award after an out Bisexual person), it's important in the Bisexual part of modern LGBT history).

Are there any other noteable chapters? Such as what was the first chapeter, etc. All help and answers cheerfully accepted. CyntWorkStuff 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am wondering if anyone knows what the PFLAG Brisbane thing is about.

Poor article

Without slapping a million flags on this article, I'll just write that it is poorly written, sourced, and doesn't even really tell me what PFLAG is or what it does as if inherently everyone in the world has common knowledge of it. This might as well be moved to Wikidictionary as a definition for the acronym PFLAG. It also doesn't talk about PFLAG action and controversy in terms of its control over its own chapters and its chapters' activities in their communities. The study of such organizations like P-FLAG is frequently written about in scholarly fields and in newspaper articles. 75.72.162.175 07:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for "controversy in terms of its control over its own chapters and its chapters' activities in their communities" would be helpful. Benjiboi 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PFOX

Is PFOX really an opposition group to PFLAG? It seems like it has its own mission, apart from PFLAG. I'm fixing it, unless there is some source that PFLAG's "popularity triggered creation of an opposition group, PFOX." --Knulclunk (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added refs to address this. Benjiboi 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent reporting. I think everything that you added is good, except the opinion that PFOX was founded as a counter to PFLAG; this is the section that came from:

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays admitted to a certain satisfaction about the chaos and hostility between the anti-Gay groups, especially considering, she said, that P-FOX was founded as a counter to P-FLAG. She added that she’s not surprised by current events. "When you try to build something on a foundation of fear and ignorance, I don’t believe it’s going to be lasting," she said of "ex-Gay" ministries.

Hardly a source. It would be better to have reporting that uncovers or a press statement that confirms PFOX's opposition to PFLAG. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better.... --Knulclunk (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be an encyclopedic way to state that PFOX is aping the name of PFLAG even if we don't speculate why. Benjiboi 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

think section is fine, but should it really be such a large part of THIS article?? if the group has any merit other than as people who are "anti" PFLAG then maybe it should be it's own article with just a minor reference to it CyntWorkStuff (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a tidy world true, but, in my experience, fully referenced sections that painfully spell out what the culture war-ish issues are tend to be left alone. As the rest of the article grows up around this it will simply be the first section that matured. Nothing stops vandalistic deletions like referenced material and until it is referenced it tends to get picked at and watered down. I've learned to use quotes and let the refs speak for themselves. In this case the rest of the article now needsa the same treatment. Benjiboi 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point, and the article as a whole certainly does need to be beefed-up, I've notices that so many times reasonably inoffensive and ubiquitous entities (or at least to the LGBT & Str8 Allied Communities) like PFLAG get short shrift because they are just "there" and taken for granted - the old "sky is blue" thing CyntWorkStuff (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair PFLAG by its nature isn't flashy so sources are out there. (I bet some books too) Benjiboi 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the PFOX paragraph necessarry for this article? It's a whole different organisation and even if it's being referred to in this article, it doesn't need this much space. 24.132.7.152 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including this paragraph here is insulting. They are unrelated. There is no such thing as an "ex gay". This is propaganda that is NOT backed up by any credible science. The entire "ex gay" movement was built upon faked data presented by the discredited "conversions" of Masters and Johnson. See Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homosexuality-cure-masters-johnson Lou2u (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 706 editorial words on the entire P-FLAG page, 250 are devoted to P-FOX. IMHO, this is way too many and detracts from the overall usefulness of the article. Now that P-FOX has its own Wiki page, I suggest that the discussion on P-FLAG's page be GREATLY trimmed (e.g., to one or two sentences) while retaining the link to the P-FOX page. Any objections? Irv (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is PFOX even discussed in this article? PFOX has its own entry, and that organization's mission, goals, etc. should be discussed there and not in this article. This section should focus on controversies or debates involving both groups. Less discussion of PFOX itself is warranted.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P-FLAG vs PFLAG

Here's the text of I letter I just sent to PFLAG's national office:

I'm editing the Wikipedia PFLAG page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents,_Families_and_Friends_of_Lesbians_and_Gays
and want to document the fact that the acronym once was styled "P-FLAG". I've found nothing about this in the various history pages on PFLAG's website, other than a photo (pasted at bottom) of a banner at
http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=279
I've inserted this URL as Ref 3 to the paragraph reading:
<<< The acronym PFLAG is pronounced as P-FLAG [piːflæg], and was once officially styled in that manner.[3] >>>
And I also put in "Redirects" in case a searcher looks for "P-FLAG".
The hyphen went away around the mid-1990's at the time the logo was revised to incorporate some horizontal stripes. And had they asked me I would have voted "no" for pronounceability reasons. (Several times I have had people look at my name tag and say "What's Pflouggh?")
Anyway, the "P-FLAG" rendition is part of PFLAG's history and I think ought to be documented somewhere in the two History pages on the PFLAG website. The boilerplate states that PFLAG is a registered trademark or service mark; I bet P-FLAG still is also. Just for kicks I checked IBM's official website. In the History portion for the year 1924 it states:
<<< The Computing- Tabulating- Recording Co. is renamed International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). >>>
and the IBM history pages prior to 1924 use only the then-applicable name. A case can be made that PFLAG's history pages ought to follow the same model.
In any event, I would appreciate it if you could send me a publicly searchable reference (ideally, an updated version of the history pages mentioned above) of the old style for the Wiki page -- something more official looking than that banner. And if you can confirm the date of switchover I'll note that on the History page on the Wiki site.
PS: I actually may have been in the cropped part of that photo, because attended both the National convention in Arlington and participated in PFLAG-Houston's "Mother's March on Washington" about that time, and was in at least one official group photo on the capitol steps.

Irv (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's excerpt from the reply promptly received:

Thanks for your email. The hyphen was removed from the PFLAG acronym in 1993. I hope that’s helpful. If you need anything else, just let me know.
Thanks again,
Steve Ralls
Director of Communications

Voice: (202) 467-8180 ext. 214
Fax: (202) 467-8194

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National
1726 M Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
www.pflag.org

Irv (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PFLAG acronym

I had heard a while ago (more than a decade ago) that PFLAG stood for Proud Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Was this also an acceptable and official acronym for the organization, or did someone make that up randomly? biancasimone (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would fit, but it was started by a parent and I understand the initial meaning was "Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays".--Casey (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organization now called PFLAG National

As of this year, the organization has gone from fully calling out its name to the acronym only, in order to represent its full inclusion of bisexual and transgender people. What is the best way to designate that, given the title of the article is the spell out? Pflagnational (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to PFLAG, becasue that is the title used most prominently on the orgainsation's web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify the distinction between "PFLAG National" and just plain "PFLAG"? The Press Release (Ref 2) reads: ". . . the membership voted to change the official name of the organization from Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — for which ‘PFLAG’ was an acronym — to PFLAG, reflecting the organization’s inclusiveness; PFLAG National is the official name of the national organization." So, is the Washington office (and only it) named "PFLAG National" just as my local chapter might be named (and registered as a Texas corporation as) "PFLAG Houston"? Casey (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx to unregistered user Pflagnational for making all the clarifications on the name as well as on the expanding-over-time mission of PFLAG. But now there is no mention at all of PFLAG National. (However, I did create a redirect page PFLAG National for searches on that name.) Reference 2 is to a press release from PFLAG National. If future releases will be under that banner, it seems as if this main PFLAG page should mention just who that is and what its role is in the overall organization that's comprised mainly of the 350 or so chapters. Casey (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: Mentioned (with exactly who they are left as an exercise for the reader) near bottom under Popular Culture: PFLAG National provided guidance and support to Degrassi High . . . Casey (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made updates to page including cites. No mention of PFLAG National, which is the national organization, which heads up the chapter network of PFLAG. Can add reference to delineate this.::: Pflagnational (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on PFLAG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]