This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Anyone else feeling like the tone in the final paragraph is not encyclopedic but sarcastic? Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 01:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Which source supports this statement, which was recently added? Viriditas ( talk) 01:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The law does not prohibit "discussion of" sexual identify or gender identity, it prohibits "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third 98 parties on" those subjects. Teachers or outside parties cannot develop a viewpoint or lesson plan and instruct children in it, but spontaneous discussion of these issues among students or between students or teachers is not prohibited by the law. See bill text (p. 4) at https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF. The way the article reads now is prejudicial since it overstates what is restricted by the law. Mygfisanut ( talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Supporters of the bill state that discussions about sexuality and gender identity should be handled by a child's parents and not by their schools; DeSantis' Press Secretary Christina Pushaw has called HB 1557 an "Anti-Grooming Bill".
This strikes me as nothing more than PR fluff, and the wikipedia article on the only source for these claims ( The Christian Post) does not suggest that it's a reliable outlet anyway.
...pejoratively known by critics (primarily Democrats) as the Don't Say Gay bill.
This is not encyclopedic, in fact, it reads like a bad faith partisan jab against the bill's critics. The Don't Say Gay Bill is
WP:COMMONNAME, and should be treated as such.
It also appears like the article fails to mention that the bill is a part of a much broader attack on public education by the GOP, like the conspiracy theories surrounding Critical Race Theory, as part of a push for School Choice. 46.97.170.50 ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Just a note about the confusion around this bill: the bill's summary says that it "[prohibits] classroom discussion", but the actual text of the bill says that it applies specifically to "classroom instruction". See [1]. This distinction might be useful to note in the article. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 04:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This bill seems very much a product of the stealth Project Blitz bill mill attempt to promote Christian nationalism in the US. Has anyone connected the bill with people and groups like David Barton and CNP? Viriditas ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a non-neutral organization run by Republicans. I’ve noted it as such. This is yet another instance (I can think of hundreds so far) of Republicans creating data to fit the facts. Viriditas ( talk) 02:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
In the info box of the page, it says the bill was introduced by Joe Harding. However, in the text of the page, it says it was introduced by Dennis K. Baxley. I was able to find an ABC article that refers to Joe Harding as the "sponsor of the legislation" The flsenate.gov page refers to a similar bill of the same title ( Parental Rights in Education Senate Bill 1834) that was withdrawn, this is the one that was introduced by Baxley. The same website also says House Bill 1557 was introduced by Harding, Erin Grall, and some other co-introducers known collectively as the "Education and Employment Committee." I am not sure how exactly the infobox and article should be changed to reflect all this information, some input would be nice. I am new to Wikipedia so mainly I'm not sure if there can be more than one introducer in the info box, if it has to be a person or if it can be the whole committee. For now, I have changed the article to fit what I think is right. Justtrujames ( talk) 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This article currently says "it prohibits teachers from discussing LGBT related topics in classrooms." One of the most common arguments I've heard in favor of the bill is that it actually makes no mention of 'gay' and is equally applicable to 'straight' students, so I don't think it's accurate to specifically say it prohibits LGBT topics. The bill is targeted against LGBT students, and I feel it would be useful to explain the 'how' in the article (but I myself don't know how to cover it). - Brian Kendig ( talk) 04:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
In addition to renaming the article to either the bill's proper name or its nickname as per WP:COMMONNAME. Having looked quickly, the only other Florida House Bill to be referred to by its Bill number on this website is Florida House Bill H-837 (which incidentally also provoked quite a bit of justified controversy).
No intention of hijacking by the way, mentioning that additional issue just seems relevant to me. - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 07:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Earlier versions of the bill were criticized by some individuals as well as large corporations for prohibiting students in primary classes (kindergarten to grade 3) from learning about gender identity in schools.
It's not restricted to "earlier versions," this bill is still observably in serious dispute in its most recent revision. [1] "The bill was criticized by some individuals..." should take its place.
Known informally as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, it prohibited teachers from discussing LGBT related topics in classrooms from kindergarten to third grade. The legislation has been opposed by the American Bar Association, Equality Florida, and U.S. President Joe Biden.
The use of past tense in the first sentence followed by a sentence in the present tense implies that the bill no longer prohibits classroom instruction. Additionally, this section needs to be edited to reflect the most current revision of the bill, which states that instruction by school personnel or third parties are banned. Page 4, Lines 97-98
As previously noted by Brian Kendig, the preamble of the bill contradicts the actual text of the bill:
Preamble: prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels
Text: Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
This incongruence feels like key information that the article omits. NBC News touched on this, and so did the New York Times. [2] [3] Cadenrock1 ( talk) 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
References
I'm not from the US and coming to this article do not understand what age kindergarten (which isn't a thing in my country) to grade 3 represents. After reading further to understand the only additional reference is "Gabbard stated instead of kindergarten to grade 3, the legislation should encompass students from kindergarten to 12th grade.". Similarly I have no understanding what 12th grade means.
Though educational levels are distinct from age groups, it would help if some one who understands those terms added some brackets along the lines of "(age five to fifteen)". I know I could try to follow references to US names for school years, but since most countries have their own terminology it seems an necessary burden for every reader to learn another countries system just to know general student ages. BeardedChimp ( talk) 07:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding the word "false" to the sentence "DeSantis's Press Secretary Christina Pushaw has called HB 1557 an "Anti- Grooming Bill" and falsely claimed that anyone who opposes the bill is " probably a groomer." It doesn't matter whether or not the claim is "false," the point is to note what she said. Adding "falsely" to the sentence violates;
and
2601:1C0:5301:4260:5B7E:4228:D1A7:600D ( talk) 05:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This revert seems problematic. I don’t see what’s wrong with using these sources. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
When the NYT and CBS say that its opponents call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill or act, that obviously implies that people who are neutral or support it do *not* generally call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill or act without quotation marks, correct? That seems well worth indicating in the lead sentence where all these names are provided, by simply and concisely repeating the undisputed and well-sourced fact that its opponents call it the “don’t say gay” bill or act. I also do not understand why it would be appropriate to completely omit the following well-sourced information from this article:
The Act includes a provision “requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent”, and this provision applies not just to gender issues and sexuality, but also to other challenging subjects including substance abuse or depression.[1][2][3]
[1]Goldstein, Dana.
“Opponents Call It the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill. Here’s What It Says”,
The New York Times (18 Mar 2022).
[2]Staver, Anna.
“Compare Ohio House Bill 616 to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' law”,
Cincinnatti Enquirer (5 Apr 2022).
[3]Klas, Mary Ellen.
”A breakdown of the language in Florida’s so-called ‘don’t say gay’ bill”,
Tampa Bay Times (29 May 2022).
It seems particularly important to mention this provision because it clarifies the no-discussion rule, and clarifies that teachers can respond in a limited way to kids who raise these issues.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
In my most recent edit, I have added the excessive citations template to the article.
In WP:OVERCITE, an example where 15 citations are added is given. One paragraph in this article had 17 consecutive citations in it. Another one in a different section had 16 consecutive citations.
The amount of excessive citations clutters the article up.
AEagleLionThing ( talk) 17:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This issue has now been resolved in a most satisfactory manner that both preserves the invaluable citations and eliminates the clutter. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all! I edited the article by simply inserting one line into the "Support" section of the article. The statement said "Notably, the bill does not say 'dont say gay' or 'dont say trans' in any manner." That edit was promptly removed for "vandalism." Please tell me how this is "vandalism" or "not constructive" when it is a verifiable fact that the bill does not contain this language. That is one of the main reasons for certain politicians being so angry with media sources in their reporting on this legislation, because it literally said no such thing like "Don't say gay." 149.101.1.114 ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hello, I came to this page following the request for a third opinion in this matter. Upon reading your exchange, especially the last two messages, it is not clear to me that there is currently a dispute about content, or whether you consider the issue resolved. May I trouble one of you to clarify whether a third opinion is still necessary? JArthur1984 ( talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
@ PoliticalPoint I have a compromise version of the lead which is ready, not only attempting to address both of our concerns but additionally giving a sentence-long mention to the derivative and expansionary legislation in both Florida and other states. You can view and add to the draft at User:InvadingInvader/1557 new lead draft.
To catch everybody else up, the main problems I'm seeing to the present version of the lead are opposition to the law being placed in every paragraph except the first, as well as blanket terminology to mischaracterize certain groups as unanimously being in favor of the law. Additionally, some groups are mentioned twice separately (at least sentence-wise) when they don't need to be. In particular, the mentioning of the Federal Government of the United States as "the United States", as well as the mentioning of parents and students in that fourth lead paragraph's creates uncited or misleadingly-phrased claims. Regardless of whatever latin phrase justifies the usage of United States as a metonym, it ultimately doesn't help our readers. Moreover, the usage of the United States is more akin to intergovernmental affairs' article with concepts outside of the United States. For average users, in spit of a footnote, it is way too easy to confuse this meaning to signify all of America opposes the law, especially considering other legislation. It's far more accurate to change the phrasing to something saying that "organizations representing" and "the president/the federal government" instead of insert-latin-here justified metonyms with more footnotes which ultimately prove to have more potential to mislead.
Same with parents and families; clearly there are some parents who support the law, especially in red states. Why did DeSantis win his reelection by a 20 percentage point margin? That 20 percent, given widespread media coverage, must hav known about the law and still supported him for it. Same for all the other GOP officials who won reelection. It's best to clarify as well that for accuracy, these backings were all made by organizations representing, not just a footnote. The footnote itself obscures the accuracy, allowing a potentially rigged These should be acceptable and neutral phrasing retweaks to the article which shouldn't hurt the neutrality of the article at all, either further or in the first place. It's borderline manipulative in a way.
Moreover, I'm proposing that we do not need to include all four student chant slogans. Just saying "We Say Gay" would ideally be enough. The phrase "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Homophobes Have Got To Go" is WAY too long and unnecessary in the presence of the three other options available, and only "We Say Gay" is truly unique to the opposition of this law. We see "Hey Hey Ho Ho" all the time at protests (see NY Times on the repetitiveness of "Hey Hey, Ho Ho"), and "X lives matter" used less commonly, and "We Fight for Gay Rights" is a bit longer than necessary. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys; I'm noticing that a lot of citations are duplicated in the source, especially in both the lead and the Support/opposition section. Might want to cut that down and consider using the reuse citations tool in the lead? This can help reduce article size and lower loading times. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edit here, which was reverted, effectively undid this edit here that corrected the names of the bills per the official titles of the bills (see here, here, and here) and changed all instances of GOP to Republican (as that is more formal and encyclopedic) and also effectively undid this edit here that added various parameters to numerous citations across the article, including in that section, in an effort the preserve the sources. You did not explain the reason for effectively undoing these edits. Your edit here, which was reverted, inserted the unreliable source template for the Family Equality Council, despite that organization having a Wikipedia article, which generally means that it meets the standard for WP:RS. You did not explain the reason for considering the Family Equality Council to be an unreliable source. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 08:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edit here, which was reverted, removed a footnote alleging that the footnote is empty, but the footnote is not empty, but rather carries out the transclusion of content from another footnote via reference to it. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here, here, and here, which were reverted, substantially and improperly altered the lead, removed the contextualization for the comment by Trump, and incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Firstly, the lead should not be substantially altered as there is clearly no consensus to do so amidst the current disagreement regarding it and the the ongoing request for comment regarding it. Moreover, the alteration was improper as the additional citations clearly references families and parents who are not necessarily represented by the Family Equality Council. The additional citations were implemented due to your removal of the reference to parents, with you alleging that there was no citation for it, despite that fact the Family Equality Council citation supports references to both families and parents. Although your allegation was addressed by pointing that out, additional citations were implemented to decisively resolve the issue. Secondly, if the comment by Trump is to be mentioned, then in accordance with WP:FALSEBALANCE, the comment must appear with contextualization or simply be excluded. The additional content provided that contextualization with a citation in accordance with WP:FALSEBALANCE. The alternative is to simply exclude that comment. Your edit summary that "this a slander( sic)-fest here no matter how true it is" is an oxymoron, given that slander (actually, in the case of written defamation it would be libel, not slander, which is spoken defamation, but regardless) is, by definition, a statement that is false. The content provided for contextualization with a citation are all true statements of verifiable facts. Thirdly, your insertion of OHCHR after United Nations is a common mistake regarding the independent experts of the United Nations, who receive support for their work from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, but are not directly part of that office. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 07:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here, which were reverted, incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council and removed the gallery of the sponsors of the act without a valid reason. The United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, but is not a member of the council. You previously incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was corrected and reverted. You then immediately went and incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Why do you persist in this behavior? Why not inquire on the talk page, if you are unaware or unsure, instead of inserting errors into the article? The United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is correctly identified as representing the United Nations. You also removed the gallery of the sponsors of the act with the false claim that "it is potentially libelous" when you have already been informed that defamation, whether in the spoken form of slander or in the written form of libel, is, by definition, a statement that is false. Why do you persist in these false claims? The gallery is a true representation of the sponsors of the act. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here were reverted and your edit here was partially reverted. Firstly, as stated earlier, if the comment by Trump is to be included in the article, it must be properly and fully contextualized or otherwise omitted altogether per WP:FALSEBALANCE, given that to do so otherwise would induce a false balance in the article. If you have a concern with WP:WEIGHT, then perhaps the alternative solution to this is to indeed exclude the comment altogether in accordance with both WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, especially given that the comment is not very prominent or notable as yourself have admitted. Secondly, it is unnecessary to distinguish parents as LGBT parents, given that LGBT parents are obviously parents. Doing so unnecessarily elongates the lead, especially given that you yourself have repeatedly expressed concerns about the length of the lead and it runs counter to recent efforts to condense the lead. Finally, although there is no problem with your delinking of the various duplicate links, it is more appropriate and encyclopedic in prose to state the political party of DeSantis after his name rather than before his official title, as his role in the legislative process is as Florida Governor, not as a Republican. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 22:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here were reverted and your edit here was partially reverted. Firstly, while there is no problem with your listing of the companies, there is clearly no consensus for such an extreme alteration of the lead, given the various concerns raised across various discussions across various sections of the article talk page. Secondly, MOS:ALTNAME is clear that all alternative names, both shorter forms and longer forms, are to be listed. See, for example, the articles for the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, there should not be a link within an alternative name itself, given that such is not the standard on Wikipedia. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 01:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposing that we rewrite the second paragraph as follows:
This would benefit the article by keeping the paragraphs more organized to specific aspects of the legislation. The sentence The main nationwide organization for LGBT rights in the United States and the main statewide organization for LGBT rights in Florida, the Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, respectively, responded by stating that DeSantis had "placed Florida squarely on the wrong side of history" and had "attacked parents and children in our state" by signing the bill.
, presently at the end of the second paragraph, would be moved to the beginning of the third paragraph. The opposition is necessary, as it was what made this legislation notable in the first place. However, it doesn't belong in every paragraph, and the opposition should be concentrated in its own paragraphs rather than "invading" (ironic considering my username) other paragraphs of the lead. This can also ensure that the opposition is balanced to avoid invoking WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE without giving up a neutral point of view. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk)
09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
…already have Florida legislators introduced bills expanding the scope and provisions of the law. I suggest
…Florida legislators have introduced bills expanding the scope of the lawinstead. Second, I have a question. Is it normal in Wikipedia articles to use "GOP" instead of "Republican Party" in this context? It only appears once in the current version of the article.
References
Presently, the metonymy within this article is inappropriate, though it’s come too close to an edit war to risk removing. These contain various footnotes, in the form of “The opponents of the act are families (efn|represented by the family equality council), pediatricians (efn|represented by x), the United States (efn|represented by the federal government of the United States), etc. The problem this creates is too many footnotes and too ambiguous phrasing which can easily mislead readers. I have proposed just giving the facts and saying “Organizations representing X, X, and X,” and put merged citations as well as just naming the organization in some cases. It’s more factually accurate and has less room for ambiguity in assuming that everybody in a class agrees. I would say that while “many” groups in phrasing is a step in the right direction, it’s still too ambiguous. There are certainly more than enough lawyers, students, parents, and families opposed to the act. Same within the United States as a metonym for the government; there are too many ambiguities with interpreting this, and it would admittedly look strange to say “the United States opposes the Florida law”, especially when one draws conclusion from that statement Florida hates its own law as Florida is one of the United States. The US hasn’t even sued the state of Florida over the law, which invalidates the only good reason to use this specific metonym. Metonymy can’t help in disputed cases unless it’s clearly established such as with a previous mention, such as referring to the US government as Washington in a section of an article titled about the US. This isn’t happening here either.
Metonomy and footnotes also provide the issue of hiding potentially key details. It’s comparable to sinister corporate tactics one might see in American commercials with all those disclaimers; you’re intentionally making them small to prevent a disambiguating or clarification and encourage the drawing of a specific conclusion which may not be precisely the case. If Wikipedia can be more factually accurate in its phrasing and reduce ambiguity, every mean should be undertaken within its policies to do so. The footnotes in this article ultimately should be used to name specific organizations opposing the law whose work wasn’t as comparable to the students or the Walt Disney Company; such organizations could include the American Bar Association or the teacher unions. The rewrite I would propose is the following:
Students across both Florida and the US have also demonstrated against the law via massive walkouts held at middle schools and high schools with large crowds of middle schoolers and high schoolers chanting a variety of slogans such as "We Say Gay". In addition to LGBT advocacy groups and students, organizations representing teachers, pro-LGBT+ families, pediatricians, psychologists, lawyers, civil rights and human rights organizations, the US federal government, the United Nations, and 296 major businesses all stood against the law.
Keep all the footnotes for the organizations and sources (copying footnotes on iOS isn’t necessarily the easiest) and if necessary, tweak the wording of the footnotes to correspond with this (such as the US federal government having a footnote of the federal government of the US). This suggested phrasing also has the side benefit of placing student protests more prominently in the lead, and considering that they were the biggest protestors for the law, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to give them credit. We can add onto this format as well; new comma and new source. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@ PoliticalPoint reverted my edits to the Opposition section of the debate, calling them "too extreme". My opinion is that we should restructure this section to avoid repetitive phrasing and overlinking. We can additionally condense a lot of these organizations' opinions together as well when they're all essentially saying the same thing. For example, comments by most of these organizations all say that children are being harmed in schools, and saying "X opposes the act because it harms LGBT children" over and over and over gets repetitive. My suggestion is to condense the human rights advocacy groups and teachers association into one paragraph, since they're the most directly affected by it, then proceed with another paragraph on non-school focused groups like pediatricians and lawyers and psychologists. Place the UN and federal government reactions in their own separate paragraphs respectively after them, and close the section off with the businesses. I'm open to either separating the Disney content into their own paragraph or merging them with the rest of the businesses, though for the purposes of continuing on with the rest of the paragraph, I've separated them into their own paragraphs. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
"multiple organizations have made the argument that the act harms LGBT+ children. These include Organizations X, Y, and Z. One of the most prominent organizations to also argue against the bill for this reason was Organization X, whose president stated "Lorem Ipsum". For the next paragraph, state non-education or non-advocacy focused organizations like pediatricians and psychologists saying the following:
"These arguments were further supported by the American Association for Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. Many other organizations in health, such as XYZ and ZYX, seconded these arguments, and they were further amplified by some non-healthcare related organizations, such as the American Bar Association". Wikilink appropriately, and include one or two statements if they're prominent enough. For the US Government, state which party as well as which parts of the government. Expanding @ AEagleLionThing's comments from prior, the complicated structure of the US federalist system for unfamiliar readers doesn't justify the tota pro partibus when there are so many in the federal government currently who support the act (such as Rick Scott and Tim Scott who recently re-introduced the PROTECT Kids Act, essentially another national Don't Say Gay bill). Instead of just saying the Federal Government opposes the act, consider saying "members of the Biden Administration", "President Biden and prominent members of his administration", or "the Biden Administration as well as the Department of Education". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does this phrase appear repeatedly throughout the article, when the language is not supported by the sources? 47.137.179.4 ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Anyone else feeling like the tone in the final paragraph is not encyclopedic but sarcastic? Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 01:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Which source supports this statement, which was recently added? Viriditas ( talk) 01:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The law does not prohibit "discussion of" sexual identify or gender identity, it prohibits "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third 98 parties on" those subjects. Teachers or outside parties cannot develop a viewpoint or lesson plan and instruct children in it, but spontaneous discussion of these issues among students or between students or teachers is not prohibited by the law. See bill text (p. 4) at https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF. The way the article reads now is prejudicial since it overstates what is restricted by the law. Mygfisanut ( talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Supporters of the bill state that discussions about sexuality and gender identity should be handled by a child's parents and not by their schools; DeSantis' Press Secretary Christina Pushaw has called HB 1557 an "Anti-Grooming Bill".
This strikes me as nothing more than PR fluff, and the wikipedia article on the only source for these claims ( The Christian Post) does not suggest that it's a reliable outlet anyway.
...pejoratively known by critics (primarily Democrats) as the Don't Say Gay bill.
This is not encyclopedic, in fact, it reads like a bad faith partisan jab against the bill's critics. The Don't Say Gay Bill is
WP:COMMONNAME, and should be treated as such.
It also appears like the article fails to mention that the bill is a part of a much broader attack on public education by the GOP, like the conspiracy theories surrounding Critical Race Theory, as part of a push for School Choice. 46.97.170.50 ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Just a note about the confusion around this bill: the bill's summary says that it "[prohibits] classroom discussion", but the actual text of the bill says that it applies specifically to "classroom instruction". See [1]. This distinction might be useful to note in the article. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 04:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This bill seems very much a product of the stealth Project Blitz bill mill attempt to promote Christian nationalism in the US. Has anyone connected the bill with people and groups like David Barton and CNP? Viriditas ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a non-neutral organization run by Republicans. I’ve noted it as such. This is yet another instance (I can think of hundreds so far) of Republicans creating data to fit the facts. Viriditas ( talk) 02:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
In the info box of the page, it says the bill was introduced by Joe Harding. However, in the text of the page, it says it was introduced by Dennis K. Baxley. I was able to find an ABC article that refers to Joe Harding as the "sponsor of the legislation" The flsenate.gov page refers to a similar bill of the same title ( Parental Rights in Education Senate Bill 1834) that was withdrawn, this is the one that was introduced by Baxley. The same website also says House Bill 1557 was introduced by Harding, Erin Grall, and some other co-introducers known collectively as the "Education and Employment Committee." I am not sure how exactly the infobox and article should be changed to reflect all this information, some input would be nice. I am new to Wikipedia so mainly I'm not sure if there can be more than one introducer in the info box, if it has to be a person or if it can be the whole committee. For now, I have changed the article to fit what I think is right. Justtrujames ( talk) 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This article currently says "it prohibits teachers from discussing LGBT related topics in classrooms." One of the most common arguments I've heard in favor of the bill is that it actually makes no mention of 'gay' and is equally applicable to 'straight' students, so I don't think it's accurate to specifically say it prohibits LGBT topics. The bill is targeted against LGBT students, and I feel it would be useful to explain the 'how' in the article (but I myself don't know how to cover it). - Brian Kendig ( talk) 04:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
In addition to renaming the article to either the bill's proper name or its nickname as per WP:COMMONNAME. Having looked quickly, the only other Florida House Bill to be referred to by its Bill number on this website is Florida House Bill H-837 (which incidentally also provoked quite a bit of justified controversy).
No intention of hijacking by the way, mentioning that additional issue just seems relevant to me. - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 07:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Earlier versions of the bill were criticized by some individuals as well as large corporations for prohibiting students in primary classes (kindergarten to grade 3) from learning about gender identity in schools.
It's not restricted to "earlier versions," this bill is still observably in serious dispute in its most recent revision. [1] "The bill was criticized by some individuals..." should take its place.
Known informally as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, it prohibited teachers from discussing LGBT related topics in classrooms from kindergarten to third grade. The legislation has been opposed by the American Bar Association, Equality Florida, and U.S. President Joe Biden.
The use of past tense in the first sentence followed by a sentence in the present tense implies that the bill no longer prohibits classroom instruction. Additionally, this section needs to be edited to reflect the most current revision of the bill, which states that instruction by school personnel or third parties are banned. Page 4, Lines 97-98
As previously noted by Brian Kendig, the preamble of the bill contradicts the actual text of the bill:
Preamble: prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels
Text: Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
This incongruence feels like key information that the article omits. NBC News touched on this, and so did the New York Times. [2] [3] Cadenrock1 ( talk) 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
References
I'm not from the US and coming to this article do not understand what age kindergarten (which isn't a thing in my country) to grade 3 represents. After reading further to understand the only additional reference is "Gabbard stated instead of kindergarten to grade 3, the legislation should encompass students from kindergarten to 12th grade.". Similarly I have no understanding what 12th grade means.
Though educational levels are distinct from age groups, it would help if some one who understands those terms added some brackets along the lines of "(age five to fifteen)". I know I could try to follow references to US names for school years, but since most countries have their own terminology it seems an necessary burden for every reader to learn another countries system just to know general student ages. BeardedChimp ( talk) 07:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding the word "false" to the sentence "DeSantis's Press Secretary Christina Pushaw has called HB 1557 an "Anti- Grooming Bill" and falsely claimed that anyone who opposes the bill is " probably a groomer." It doesn't matter whether or not the claim is "false," the point is to note what she said. Adding "falsely" to the sentence violates;
and
2601:1C0:5301:4260:5B7E:4228:D1A7:600D ( talk) 05:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This revert seems problematic. I don’t see what’s wrong with using these sources. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
When the NYT and CBS say that its opponents call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill or act, that obviously implies that people who are neutral or support it do *not* generally call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill or act without quotation marks, correct? That seems well worth indicating in the lead sentence where all these names are provided, by simply and concisely repeating the undisputed and well-sourced fact that its opponents call it the “don’t say gay” bill or act. I also do not understand why it would be appropriate to completely omit the following well-sourced information from this article:
The Act includes a provision “requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent”, and this provision applies not just to gender issues and sexuality, but also to other challenging subjects including substance abuse or depression.[1][2][3]
[1]Goldstein, Dana.
“Opponents Call It the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill. Here’s What It Says”,
The New York Times (18 Mar 2022).
[2]Staver, Anna.
“Compare Ohio House Bill 616 to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' law”,
Cincinnatti Enquirer (5 Apr 2022).
[3]Klas, Mary Ellen.
”A breakdown of the language in Florida’s so-called ‘don’t say gay’ bill”,
Tampa Bay Times (29 May 2022).
It seems particularly important to mention this provision because it clarifies the no-discussion rule, and clarifies that teachers can respond in a limited way to kids who raise these issues.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
In my most recent edit, I have added the excessive citations template to the article.
In WP:OVERCITE, an example where 15 citations are added is given. One paragraph in this article had 17 consecutive citations in it. Another one in a different section had 16 consecutive citations.
The amount of excessive citations clutters the article up.
AEagleLionThing ( talk) 17:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This issue has now been resolved in a most satisfactory manner that both preserves the invaluable citations and eliminates the clutter. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all! I edited the article by simply inserting one line into the "Support" section of the article. The statement said "Notably, the bill does not say 'dont say gay' or 'dont say trans' in any manner." That edit was promptly removed for "vandalism." Please tell me how this is "vandalism" or "not constructive" when it is a verifiable fact that the bill does not contain this language. That is one of the main reasons for certain politicians being so angry with media sources in their reporting on this legislation, because it literally said no such thing like "Don't say gay." 149.101.1.114 ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Hello, I came to this page following the request for a third opinion in this matter. Upon reading your exchange, especially the last two messages, it is not clear to me that there is currently a dispute about content, or whether you consider the issue resolved. May I trouble one of you to clarify whether a third opinion is still necessary? JArthur1984 ( talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
@ PoliticalPoint I have a compromise version of the lead which is ready, not only attempting to address both of our concerns but additionally giving a sentence-long mention to the derivative and expansionary legislation in both Florida and other states. You can view and add to the draft at User:InvadingInvader/1557 new lead draft.
To catch everybody else up, the main problems I'm seeing to the present version of the lead are opposition to the law being placed in every paragraph except the first, as well as blanket terminology to mischaracterize certain groups as unanimously being in favor of the law. Additionally, some groups are mentioned twice separately (at least sentence-wise) when they don't need to be. In particular, the mentioning of the Federal Government of the United States as "the United States", as well as the mentioning of parents and students in that fourth lead paragraph's creates uncited or misleadingly-phrased claims. Regardless of whatever latin phrase justifies the usage of United States as a metonym, it ultimately doesn't help our readers. Moreover, the usage of the United States is more akin to intergovernmental affairs' article with concepts outside of the United States. For average users, in spit of a footnote, it is way too easy to confuse this meaning to signify all of America opposes the law, especially considering other legislation. It's far more accurate to change the phrasing to something saying that "organizations representing" and "the president/the federal government" instead of insert-latin-here justified metonyms with more footnotes which ultimately prove to have more potential to mislead.
Same with parents and families; clearly there are some parents who support the law, especially in red states. Why did DeSantis win his reelection by a 20 percentage point margin? That 20 percent, given widespread media coverage, must hav known about the law and still supported him for it. Same for all the other GOP officials who won reelection. It's best to clarify as well that for accuracy, these backings were all made by organizations representing, not just a footnote. The footnote itself obscures the accuracy, allowing a potentially rigged These should be acceptable and neutral phrasing retweaks to the article which shouldn't hurt the neutrality of the article at all, either further or in the first place. It's borderline manipulative in a way.
Moreover, I'm proposing that we do not need to include all four student chant slogans. Just saying "We Say Gay" would ideally be enough. The phrase "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Homophobes Have Got To Go" is WAY too long and unnecessary in the presence of the three other options available, and only "We Say Gay" is truly unique to the opposition of this law. We see "Hey Hey Ho Ho" all the time at protests (see NY Times on the repetitiveness of "Hey Hey, Ho Ho"), and "X lives matter" used less commonly, and "We Fight for Gay Rights" is a bit longer than necessary. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys; I'm noticing that a lot of citations are duplicated in the source, especially in both the lead and the Support/opposition section. Might want to cut that down and consider using the reuse citations tool in the lead? This can help reduce article size and lower loading times. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edit here, which was reverted, effectively undid this edit here that corrected the names of the bills per the official titles of the bills (see here, here, and here) and changed all instances of GOP to Republican (as that is more formal and encyclopedic) and also effectively undid this edit here that added various parameters to numerous citations across the article, including in that section, in an effort the preserve the sources. You did not explain the reason for effectively undoing these edits. Your edit here, which was reverted, inserted the unreliable source template for the Family Equality Council, despite that organization having a Wikipedia article, which generally means that it meets the standard for WP:RS. You did not explain the reason for considering the Family Equality Council to be an unreliable source. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 08:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edit here, which was reverted, removed a footnote alleging that the footnote is empty, but the footnote is not empty, but rather carries out the transclusion of content from another footnote via reference to it. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here, here, and here, which were reverted, substantially and improperly altered the lead, removed the contextualization for the comment by Trump, and incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Firstly, the lead should not be substantially altered as there is clearly no consensus to do so amidst the current disagreement regarding it and the the ongoing request for comment regarding it. Moreover, the alteration was improper as the additional citations clearly references families and parents who are not necessarily represented by the Family Equality Council. The additional citations were implemented due to your removal of the reference to parents, with you alleging that there was no citation for it, despite that fact the Family Equality Council citation supports references to both families and parents. Although your allegation was addressed by pointing that out, additional citations were implemented to decisively resolve the issue. Secondly, if the comment by Trump is to be mentioned, then in accordance with WP:FALSEBALANCE, the comment must appear with contextualization or simply be excluded. The additional content provided that contextualization with a citation in accordance with WP:FALSEBALANCE. The alternative is to simply exclude that comment. Your edit summary that "this a slander( sic)-fest here no matter how true it is" is an oxymoron, given that slander (actually, in the case of written defamation it would be libel, not slander, which is spoken defamation, but regardless) is, by definition, a statement that is false. The content provided for contextualization with a citation are all true statements of verifiable facts. Thirdly, your insertion of OHCHR after United Nations is a common mistake regarding the independent experts of the United Nations, who receive support for their work from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, but are not directly part of that office. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 07:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here, which were reverted, incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council and removed the gallery of the sponsors of the act without a valid reason. The United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, but is not a member of the council. You previously incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was corrected and reverted. You then immediately went and incorrectly identified the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Why do you persist in this behavior? Why not inquire on the talk page, if you are unaware or unsure, instead of inserting errors into the article? The United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is correctly identified as representing the United Nations. You also removed the gallery of the sponsors of the act with the false claim that "it is potentially libelous" when you have already been informed that defamation, whether in the spoken form of slander or in the written form of libel, is, by definition, a statement that is false. Why do you persist in these false claims? The gallery is a true representation of the sponsors of the act. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here were reverted and your edit here was partially reverted. Firstly, as stated earlier, if the comment by Trump is to be included in the article, it must be properly and fully contextualized or otherwise omitted altogether per WP:FALSEBALANCE, given that to do so otherwise would induce a false balance in the article. If you have a concern with WP:WEIGHT, then perhaps the alternative solution to this is to indeed exclude the comment altogether in accordance with both WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, especially given that the comment is not very prominent or notable as yourself have admitted. Secondly, it is unnecessary to distinguish parents as LGBT parents, given that LGBT parents are obviously parents. Doing so unnecessarily elongates the lead, especially given that you yourself have repeatedly expressed concerns about the length of the lead and it runs counter to recent efforts to condense the lead. Finally, although there is no problem with your delinking of the various duplicate links, it is more appropriate and encyclopedic in prose to state the political party of DeSantis after his name rather than before his official title, as his role in the legislative process is as Florida Governor, not as a Republican. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 22:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader: Your edits here and here were reverted and your edit here was partially reverted. Firstly, while there is no problem with your listing of the companies, there is clearly no consensus for such an extreme alteration of the lead, given the various concerns raised across various discussions across various sections of the article talk page. Secondly, MOS:ALTNAME is clear that all alternative names, both shorter forms and longer forms, are to be listed. See, for example, the articles for the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, there should not be a link within an alternative name itself, given that such is not the standard on Wikipedia. -- PoliticalPoint ( talk) 01:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposing that we rewrite the second paragraph as follows:
This would benefit the article by keeping the paragraphs more organized to specific aspects of the legislation. The sentence The main nationwide organization for LGBT rights in the United States and the main statewide organization for LGBT rights in Florida, the Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, respectively, responded by stating that DeSantis had "placed Florida squarely on the wrong side of history" and had "attacked parents and children in our state" by signing the bill.
, presently at the end of the second paragraph, would be moved to the beginning of the third paragraph. The opposition is necessary, as it was what made this legislation notable in the first place. However, it doesn't belong in every paragraph, and the opposition should be concentrated in its own paragraphs rather than "invading" (ironic considering my username) other paragraphs of the lead. This can also ensure that the opposition is balanced to avoid invoking WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE without giving up a neutral point of view. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk)
09:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
…already have Florida legislators introduced bills expanding the scope and provisions of the law. I suggest
…Florida legislators have introduced bills expanding the scope of the lawinstead. Second, I have a question. Is it normal in Wikipedia articles to use "GOP" instead of "Republican Party" in this context? It only appears once in the current version of the article.
References
Presently, the metonymy within this article is inappropriate, though it’s come too close to an edit war to risk removing. These contain various footnotes, in the form of “The opponents of the act are families (efn|represented by the family equality council), pediatricians (efn|represented by x), the United States (efn|represented by the federal government of the United States), etc. The problem this creates is too many footnotes and too ambiguous phrasing which can easily mislead readers. I have proposed just giving the facts and saying “Organizations representing X, X, and X,” and put merged citations as well as just naming the organization in some cases. It’s more factually accurate and has less room for ambiguity in assuming that everybody in a class agrees. I would say that while “many” groups in phrasing is a step in the right direction, it’s still too ambiguous. There are certainly more than enough lawyers, students, parents, and families opposed to the act. Same within the United States as a metonym for the government; there are too many ambiguities with interpreting this, and it would admittedly look strange to say “the United States opposes the Florida law”, especially when one draws conclusion from that statement Florida hates its own law as Florida is one of the United States. The US hasn’t even sued the state of Florida over the law, which invalidates the only good reason to use this specific metonym. Metonymy can’t help in disputed cases unless it’s clearly established such as with a previous mention, such as referring to the US government as Washington in a section of an article titled about the US. This isn’t happening here either.
Metonomy and footnotes also provide the issue of hiding potentially key details. It’s comparable to sinister corporate tactics one might see in American commercials with all those disclaimers; you’re intentionally making them small to prevent a disambiguating or clarification and encourage the drawing of a specific conclusion which may not be precisely the case. If Wikipedia can be more factually accurate in its phrasing and reduce ambiguity, every mean should be undertaken within its policies to do so. The footnotes in this article ultimately should be used to name specific organizations opposing the law whose work wasn’t as comparable to the students or the Walt Disney Company; such organizations could include the American Bar Association or the teacher unions. The rewrite I would propose is the following:
Students across both Florida and the US have also demonstrated against the law via massive walkouts held at middle schools and high schools with large crowds of middle schoolers and high schoolers chanting a variety of slogans such as "We Say Gay". In addition to LGBT advocacy groups and students, organizations representing teachers, pro-LGBT+ families, pediatricians, psychologists, lawyers, civil rights and human rights organizations, the US federal government, the United Nations, and 296 major businesses all stood against the law.
Keep all the footnotes for the organizations and sources (copying footnotes on iOS isn’t necessarily the easiest) and if necessary, tweak the wording of the footnotes to correspond with this (such as the US federal government having a footnote of the federal government of the US). This suggested phrasing also has the side benefit of placing student protests more prominently in the lead, and considering that they were the biggest protestors for the law, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to give them credit. We can add onto this format as well; new comma and new source. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@ PoliticalPoint reverted my edits to the Opposition section of the debate, calling them "too extreme". My opinion is that we should restructure this section to avoid repetitive phrasing and overlinking. We can additionally condense a lot of these organizations' opinions together as well when they're all essentially saying the same thing. For example, comments by most of these organizations all say that children are being harmed in schools, and saying "X opposes the act because it harms LGBT children" over and over and over gets repetitive. My suggestion is to condense the human rights advocacy groups and teachers association into one paragraph, since they're the most directly affected by it, then proceed with another paragraph on non-school focused groups like pediatricians and lawyers and psychologists. Place the UN and federal government reactions in their own separate paragraphs respectively after them, and close the section off with the businesses. I'm open to either separating the Disney content into their own paragraph or merging them with the rest of the businesses, though for the purposes of continuing on with the rest of the paragraph, I've separated them into their own paragraphs. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
"multiple organizations have made the argument that the act harms LGBT+ children. These include Organizations X, Y, and Z. One of the most prominent organizations to also argue against the bill for this reason was Organization X, whose president stated "Lorem Ipsum". For the next paragraph, state non-education or non-advocacy focused organizations like pediatricians and psychologists saying the following:
"These arguments were further supported by the American Association for Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. Many other organizations in health, such as XYZ and ZYX, seconded these arguments, and they were further amplified by some non-healthcare related organizations, such as the American Bar Association". Wikilink appropriately, and include one or two statements if they're prominent enough. For the US Government, state which party as well as which parts of the government. Expanding @ AEagleLionThing's comments from prior, the complicated structure of the US federalist system for unfamiliar readers doesn't justify the tota pro partibus when there are so many in the federal government currently who support the act (such as Rick Scott and Tim Scott who recently re-introduced the PROTECT Kids Act, essentially another national Don't Say Gay bill). Instead of just saying the Federal Government opposes the act, consider saying "members of the Biden Administration", "President Biden and prominent members of his administration", or "the Biden Administration as well as the Department of Education". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does this phrase appear repeatedly throughout the article, when the language is not supported by the sources? 47.137.179.4 ( talk) 22:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)