Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law review quote

In regard to the quote that was the subject of a bit of back and forth reverting recently [1] [2] [3], I have to wonder if a law review article might provide something a bit less pejorative. Here is the contested quote: "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities." Adoring nanny ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) reply

So, first, I saw someone initially reverted the addition because they were thrown by the link—UVA Law has html preview HTML pages for its articles (some schools have full-html versions of articles, but not UVA), but the preview page does feature a link to a pdf of the full article. @ FormalDude:: I know some users prefer HTML links to PDFs (or at least I've run into that before), so I just wanted to flag that I replaced the html link in the article, in case you'd like to revert (I won't fight you on it!).
Second, as to @ Adoring nanny's point, having skimmed the article, I think that quotation is a fair representation of the article on the whole? The article, titled "The Promises and Perils of Private Enforcement", lays out a restricted set of circumstances in which private-enforcement regimes are valuable, and it's largely critical of "recent" private-enforcement efforts (among which it includes the Florida act) (see pages 1501-1502, 1541). I also think that it fairly sums up a common concern expressed regarding the law—that it will have a chilling effect on teachers afraid of state power.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Adoring nanny, I've been looking for unimpeachable sources with anything non-pejorative to say since someone made me aware of the POV-pushing on this article. I've had trouble finding solid academic work that isn't excoriating on either the act itself or on similar, previous laws that empowered citizens to censor libraries for social, moral or cultural material. Outside of a few studies done or funded by the extreme right in the US, there just doesn't seem to be anything to find. It's a bit like scouring Western academia in the Seventies for data to support the Cultural Revolution -- there is no 'there', there. It make take some years to be able to say this with any certainty, but this article looks like a poster child for the golden mean fallacy, false balance, or both. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. The quote isn't even about this law specifically, even though the article mentions the Florida law elsewhere, the quote is not referring to it. Bill Williams 19:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There are various ways to criticize the law but pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to "healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations" is not relevant criticism for this article, it's just bundling a bunch of different things together to make a vague statement that doesn't benefit readers. What exactly are readers supposed to learn after reading that? Bill Williams 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Bill. They're supposed to learn that private enforcement legislation, which the law review article explicitly lists the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act as an example of, could have potential consequences on public life. It is certainly referring to the bill when it describes its possible consequences, I'm not sure how you are confused on that. I can see how you may think it is vague, because it lists multiple areas, but the source is arguing that the contentiousness of laws like this can be felt throughout public life. I think you were a bit quick to remove this, especially considering it is the highest quality source that has coverage of the topic. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FormalDude yeah I agree with the addition after reading further commentary, I think it is fine to explain the context in relation to other laws and how they affect public life. I do apologize for removing it swiftly. Bill Williams 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. As a law review, the Virginia Law Review does meet the criteria established to be a reliable source. As a scholarly source that is published by the University of Virginia School of Law, the VLR represents one of the best available sources for us to base our content upon.
In the diffs above from Adoring nanny, and the content you removed Bill Williams, there is nothing being put into Wikivoice. Everything in that sentence is either attributed to the VLR article, or a direct quotation from it.
The quote isn't even about this law specifically Hard disagree. As the provisions section of the article clearly states, the Florida act has private enforcement clauses, as the legislation enables parents to file legal challenges against school teachings they have personal objections to. Where page 1502 in the law review article states laws targeting transgender students it is pretty clear from both the context of the surrounding paragraphs and elsewhere in the article that it is including the Florida act in those plurality of laws. The quotation itself is also obviously related, as it discusses the impact of private enforcement clauses in schools, and the Florida act targets schools for both its education ban and private enforcement clauses.
As things stand right now, I see no reason why this content should not be included. I think that Last1in has hit the nail on the head here. Among the highest quality sources, it is exceptionally rare to find an article that is not immensely critical of this act nor any other similar acts. Those few sources that do exist tend to have been funded by far-right aligned think tanks and other organisations. Per policy if the sources describe the act in overwhelmingly negative terms, then that must shape how we approach our content such that our content must also be negative. To do otherwise is to introduce false balance at best as we would be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint on the law, and to be non-neutral at worst as we would be engaging in the dispute surrounding the law by not adequately summarising the overwhelming negative reception of it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Seconding @ Sideswipe9th and @ FormalDude here on all points.
For context, this is what the article said:

A Virginia Law Review article contended that recent adaptations of private enforcement like this bill can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse, stating, "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

I thought that the portion of the text that was in Wikipedia's voice was a fair summary of the article, but, seeing as the "Wikivoice" criticism only applied to that version, I've reinserted the quotation with a briefer summary. (Note: I also moved the content, because the next sentence said "These groups", but an article written by one person isn't a group.) Here's what the text looks like now.

Noting the potential adverse consequences of private-enforcement statutes like the Florida bill, Luke P. Norris, a law professor writing in the Virginia Law Review, said, "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

"pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to 'healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations' is not relevant criticism for this article" ... I think I see what you're saying, but the article did explicitly draw that connection. Frankly, I'm not sure your evaluation of the article is really relevant here. Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jerome Frank Disciple: A couple things. I think the new placement is an improvement. I'm sure not how you claim to address fixing the purported wikivoice issue–it wasn't in wikivoice before, and it's still not in it. Everything had been, and still is, attributed. WP:WIKIVOICE means content written as if Wikipedia's saying it. That had never occurred here, I explicitly said who was saying it. The most significant part of your revision is removing "can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse". Why was that taken out? –– FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry, @ FormalDude:, I'm actually not "in town" at the moment—I'm editing in my car and am about to leave; I came to this article after seeing notifications pop up on my phone, so maybe I'm missing something. The description of the article is in Wikivoice, no? A Virginia Law Review article contended that recent adaptations of private enforcement like this bill can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse .... In other words, that is Wikipedia's voice describing what was contended in the article (rather than quoting the article). Regardless, I think the non-quoted portion of the article is the only thing @ Bill Williams could have been referring to when he made his Wikivoice critique—so, to avoid running afoul of WP:ONUS, I figured I shouldn't re-add that. But if you think the divide portion is critical, would a fair compromise be to add its equiavelent as a quotation? That way we avoid whatever Wikivoice issues Bill Williams has but we still have the content. So:

Noting the potential adverse consequences of private-enforcement statutes like the Florida bill, Luke P. Norris, a law professor writing in the Virginia Law Review, said that such regimes would "likely widen[] cultural and political divides on issues of deep moral disagreement.... The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

I hope that works! I've added it now, but obviously feel free to revert. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, that portion is not in wikivoice. Anything that is paraphrased from an inline-attribution is not in wikivoice. An example of using wikivoice in this article would be "The bill has received widespread backlash from across the United States." or "The most common organizational argument against the Act is that the provisions harm LGBT children within Florida's public schools.". I don't really see the need to quote the whole thing as you've suggested, that would just make for one long quote. The in-text attribution proves Wikipdia isn't saying anything in its own voice. –– FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah I see what you're saying! I still think it's most likely that Bill Williams was trying to say that's a bad paraphrase (though I don't know for sure). Unless he clarifies here, I don't want to run afoul of WP:ONUS. I also don't really know if the paraphrase here—which was pretty minor—makes all that big of a difference—I mean likely widen[] cultural and political divides on issues of deep moral disagreement and lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse is pretty similar—in fact, the paraphrased version is longer! Still I want to clarify that I'd prefer a paraphrased version, and if no legitimate ground can be found for its omission, I'd support returning it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think your revised edits do a good job of explaining the Virginia article, and I was too hasty to initially remove it instead of editing it myself. I don't have any issue with the content's inclusion at this point. Bill Williams 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Jerome Frank Disciple I don't think there's any problem with Wikivoice, I was just being overzealous after other editors had previously added things in Wikivoice regarding the bill's impact and stating things like "the bill harms LGBT people" instead of qualifying it as the claims of a specific person or organization. I also was being overzealous in removing the Virginia article as irrelevant because other editors had added a ton of text in the Support section (which I have long since removed) about how X or Y politician supported a bunch of different laws, which the Support section then went on to describe in detail, all of which are extremely vaguely related to this specific article (e.g. some supporters of this article's law also opposed gay marriage, but that's not relevant for this article itself). People weren't using sources that connected this law to these other viewpoints and instead were just bringing in a ton of irrelevant things, but in this case the Virginia source specifically is connecting them so I think it's perfectly fine to mention. Bill Williams 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh fantastic! I know we're all overzealous at times—I sometimes have to fight my personal instinct to double down, so kudos for you for either not having that instinct or being able to overcome it. If you'd like to revert back to the prior version, feel free.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

"does not contain the word gay"

The article currently says that the act 'does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay"'. That's trivial; it's probably unusual for an act to contain the specific catchphrase by which it is commonly known. However, it's more important to note that the act does not actually contain the word "gay", nor does it contain any reference to any particular gender identity or sexual preference. I edited the article to make this clear, but my edit was reverted with a link to the above 'RfC on who refers to the law as "don't say gay"'. I don't believe that RfC is relevant to my edit. Can we discuss whether or not the article should point out that the act does not actually have the word "gay" nor is it specific about any particular identity/orientation? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 17:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

my edit was reverted with a link to the above RfC Sorry about that. 9 times out of 10 when someone modifies the language to remove "Don't Say Gay" from the article, it's from the lead. I was mostly operating on autopilot at that point and only realised after that you'd made the edit not to the lead but the Provisions section.
So at first glance, I suspect nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation is original research. The version that I restored is certainly verifiable to the three sources cited at the end of the section, whereas the text you've proposed is not. First question would be, do you have any reliable sources that make note of what you're proposing? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say that a simple reading of the text of the act would affirm non-controversially that it says nothing about any specific gender identity or sexual orientation; this neither reaches nor implies a conclusion not stated by the act itself. I don't believe that an independent source is necessary, any more than we'd need a source to confirm that "both gender identity and sexual orientation are referred to twice within the legislation ". But I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about pointing out that the act doesn't contain the word "gay" at all. Would you be okay with simply changing does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay" (with or without the word explicitly)? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I made an edit to change the text from does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay,".I feel this is the minimum we need. By analogy, it shouldn't be surprising that the United States Bill of Rights does not actually contain the words "Bill of Rights," though it would be noteworthy if it didn't contain the word "rights."
However, I feel that the sentence The Parental Rights in Education Act does not contain the word "gay," though both "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are referred to twice within the legislation is weaker than it should be. It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? The fact that it does not, and that a face-value reading of it would make it equally applicable to straight orientation as to any other, bears mention here. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I think our description of the Act should reflect what's most common in secondary reliable sources.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? Not entirely. Like any word, gay has multiple meanings, and in this context it can refer to either people who call themselves gay, or homosexuality as a whole. I suspect, but cannot prove, that where sources describe this as the don't say gay act, they are referring to the broader definition of all homosexuals. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The act refers to teaching or discussion on "about sexual orientation or gender identity". I think the edit by Brian ('does not contain the word "gay"') is helpful as it would be surprising for a bill to contain informal language or a very specific phrase, and this fact is easily accepted by reading the text. But I disagree with saying "nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation", at least without more commentary on that aspect backed up by a good source. There are many who simply refuse to accept the concept of gender identity exists and reject the label "cis" for what they feel is "normal" or "not a pervert" or "not mentally ill" or whatever. So even mentioning gender identity is an acceptance that there is this concept and ones gender identity could be different from one's chromosomes or sex assigned at birth. And to a slightly lesser extent these days, heterosexual orientation is viewed as "normal" and so I would assume that discussing that a boy and a girl may fall in love, get married in a church, have children and so on would not be regarded as discussing sexual orientation. Whereas discussing that two boys might fall in love, get married in a church, and so on would trigger. So I think in a way it is pretty explicitly targeting sexual orientations and gender identity other than the heteronormative, it just doesn't need to mention gay or trans to do so. Hence, trying to discuss that aspect without the help of a source, would be original research IMO. -- Colin° Talk 07:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with his edit, the act doesn't mention "gay" specifically and of course it wouldn't mention "Don't Say Gay," hence readers should know that it doesn't mention the word "gay."

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

I've just finished creating the page Parental rights movement—as an aside, I would invite input to that article—I believe it would be good to link out from this article. I know this article doesn't have a See Also section, so I hesitate to suggest the creation of one just for this. Maybe another editor could suggest an alternative? Thanks. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done I've added a wikilink from "...parental rights..." in the "Organizations and other individuals" section. Marking as answered, but if you have a different suggestion, feel free to reopen. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
In the lede what if: "The law is most notable for its controversial sections which..." got changed to "The law, which purports to further parental rights, is most notable for its controversial sections which..."
I'm not sure if inserting this in the lede would require consensus on a hot-button article. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Saw something interesting in another article I wanted to add in the Aftermath section, but I can't edit it with the extended protection thing:

Beginning in 2022, several Republican lawmakers vowed to oppose any future attempt to extend the copyright term due to Disney's opposition of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. [1] 79.24.89.122 ( talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Martín, Hugo (May 11, 2022). "Republicans took away Disney's special status in Florida. Now they're gunning for Mickey himself". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 11, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.

Claims that Fox News uses the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines

I just removed a claim that Fox News used the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines and replaced it with a claim that Fox News affiliates have used the term in headlines. The original claim, based on the given reference, is between misleading and outright false, possibly intentionally so. The supporting reference linked to a local Fox affiliate in Cleveland [4], but the Fox affiliate explicitly notes on their website that article was from AP. The Wikipedia reference, however, claimed the website was a " Fox News" (including Wikilink); one would have click on the source to realize it was not the actual "Fox News" website.

After looking into it, the vast majority of articles from Fox News that involve the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" are outright calling the term "false" or are otherwise attacking or attempting to dispel or disprove the term (as would be expected). The closest thing I could find to the actual Fox News website using it was the headline, "Former Florida state rep who sponsored 'Don't Say Gay' bill breaks silence after prison sentence: 'Dark days'" [5]. However, the same article states, "sponsoring a parental rights bill Democrats referred to as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill" and "The bill sparked a national firestorm as Democrats and media outlets quickly dubbed the bill "Don't Say Gay" legislation despite the word gay not appearing anywhere in the bill's text." In summary, the original reference should not be used to support the claim that Fox News has used the headline "'Don't Say Gay' bill". One could possibly argue that Fox News did use it in a headline based on the one I discussed, but I would probably consider this a half truth when considering the broader context of not only the language of the article using it, but the overwhelming number of headlines and articles from Fox News explicitly attacking the term. While I added a source from a Fox News affiliate and corrected the article to say that it is from a Fox News affiliate, I don't know if a Fox News affiliate using the term is notable for the article, or if the entire reference to "Fox News" using the term should be removed. Wikipedialuva ( talk) 06:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act&oldid=1215064713"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law review quote

In regard to the quote that was the subject of a bit of back and forth reverting recently [1] [2] [3], I have to wonder if a law review article might provide something a bit less pejorative. Here is the contested quote: "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities." Adoring nanny ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) reply

So, first, I saw someone initially reverted the addition because they were thrown by the link—UVA Law has html preview HTML pages for its articles (some schools have full-html versions of articles, but not UVA), but the preview page does feature a link to a pdf of the full article. @ FormalDude:: I know some users prefer HTML links to PDFs (or at least I've run into that before), so I just wanted to flag that I replaced the html link in the article, in case you'd like to revert (I won't fight you on it!).
Second, as to @ Adoring nanny's point, having skimmed the article, I think that quotation is a fair representation of the article on the whole? The article, titled "The Promises and Perils of Private Enforcement", lays out a restricted set of circumstances in which private-enforcement regimes are valuable, and it's largely critical of "recent" private-enforcement efforts (among which it includes the Florida act) (see pages 1501-1502, 1541). I also think that it fairly sums up a common concern expressed regarding the law—that it will have a chilling effect on teachers afraid of state power.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Adoring nanny, I've been looking for unimpeachable sources with anything non-pejorative to say since someone made me aware of the POV-pushing on this article. I've had trouble finding solid academic work that isn't excoriating on either the act itself or on similar, previous laws that empowered citizens to censor libraries for social, moral or cultural material. Outside of a few studies done or funded by the extreme right in the US, there just doesn't seem to be anything to find. It's a bit like scouring Western academia in the Seventies for data to support the Cultural Revolution -- there is no 'there', there. It make take some years to be able to say this with any certainty, but this article looks like a poster child for the golden mean fallacy, false balance, or both. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 17:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. The quote isn't even about this law specifically, even though the article mentions the Florida law elsewhere, the quote is not referring to it. Bill Williams 19:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There are various ways to criticize the law but pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to "healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations" is not relevant criticism for this article, it's just bundling a bunch of different things together to make a vague statement that doesn't benefit readers. What exactly are readers supposed to learn after reading that? Bill Williams 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi Bill. They're supposed to learn that private enforcement legislation, which the law review article explicitly lists the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act as an example of, could have potential consequences on public life. It is certainly referring to the bill when it describes its possible consequences, I'm not sure how you are confused on that. I can see how you may think it is vague, because it lists multiple areas, but the source is arguing that the contentiousness of laws like this can be felt throughout public life. I think you were a bit quick to remove this, especially considering it is the highest quality source that has coverage of the topic. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FormalDude yeah I agree with the addition after reading further commentary, I think it is fine to explain the context in relation to other laws and how they affect public life. I do apologize for removing it swiftly. Bill Williams 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. As a law review, the Virginia Law Review does meet the criteria established to be a reliable source. As a scholarly source that is published by the University of Virginia School of Law, the VLR represents one of the best available sources for us to base our content upon.
In the diffs above from Adoring nanny, and the content you removed Bill Williams, there is nothing being put into Wikivoice. Everything in that sentence is either attributed to the VLR article, or a direct quotation from it.
The quote isn't even about this law specifically Hard disagree. As the provisions section of the article clearly states, the Florida act has private enforcement clauses, as the legislation enables parents to file legal challenges against school teachings they have personal objections to. Where page 1502 in the law review article states laws targeting transgender students it is pretty clear from both the context of the surrounding paragraphs and elsewhere in the article that it is including the Florida act in those plurality of laws. The quotation itself is also obviously related, as it discusses the impact of private enforcement clauses in schools, and the Florida act targets schools for both its education ban and private enforcement clauses.
As things stand right now, I see no reason why this content should not be included. I think that Last1in has hit the nail on the head here. Among the highest quality sources, it is exceptionally rare to find an article that is not immensely critical of this act nor any other similar acts. Those few sources that do exist tend to have been funded by far-right aligned think tanks and other organisations. Per policy if the sources describe the act in overwhelmingly negative terms, then that must shape how we approach our content such that our content must also be negative. To do otherwise is to introduce false balance at best as we would be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint on the law, and to be non-neutral at worst as we would be engaging in the dispute surrounding the law by not adequately summarising the overwhelming negative reception of it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Seconding @ Sideswipe9th and @ FormalDude here on all points.
For context, this is what the article said:

A Virginia Law Review article contended that recent adaptations of private enforcement like this bill can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse, stating, "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

I thought that the portion of the text that was in Wikipedia's voice was a fair summary of the article, but, seeing as the "Wikivoice" criticism only applied to that version, I've reinserted the quotation with a briefer summary. (Note: I also moved the content, because the next sentence said "These groups", but an article written by one person isn't a group.) Here's what the text looks like now.

Noting the potential adverse consequences of private-enforcement statutes like the Florida bill, Luke P. Norris, a law professor writing in the Virginia Law Review, said, "The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

"pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to 'healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations' is not relevant criticism for this article" ... I think I see what you're saying, but the article did explicitly draw that connection. Frankly, I'm not sure your evaluation of the article is really relevant here. Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jerome Frank Disciple: A couple things. I think the new placement is an improvement. I'm sure not how you claim to address fixing the purported wikivoice issue–it wasn't in wikivoice before, and it's still not in it. Everything had been, and still is, attributed. WP:WIKIVOICE means content written as if Wikipedia's saying it. That had never occurred here, I explicitly said who was saying it. The most significant part of your revision is removing "can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse". Why was that taken out? –– FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry, @ FormalDude:, I'm actually not "in town" at the moment—I'm editing in my car and am about to leave; I came to this article after seeing notifications pop up on my phone, so maybe I'm missing something. The description of the article is in Wikivoice, no? A Virginia Law Review article contended that recent adaptations of private enforcement like this bill can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse .... In other words, that is Wikipedia's voice describing what was contended in the article (rather than quoting the article). Regardless, I think the non-quoted portion of the article is the only thing @ Bill Williams could have been referring to when he made his Wikivoice critique—so, to avoid running afoul of WP:ONUS, I figured I shouldn't re-add that. But if you think the divide portion is critical, would a fair compromise be to add its equiavelent as a quotation? That way we avoid whatever Wikivoice issues Bill Williams has but we still have the content. So:

Noting the potential adverse consequences of private-enforcement statutes like the Florida bill, Luke P. Norris, a law professor writing in the Virginia Law Review, said that such regimes would "likely widen[] cultural and political divides on issues of deep moral disagreement.... The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities."

I hope that works! I've added it now, but obviously feel free to revert. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, that portion is not in wikivoice. Anything that is paraphrased from an inline-attribution is not in wikivoice. An example of using wikivoice in this article would be "The bill has received widespread backlash from across the United States." or "The most common organizational argument against the Act is that the provisions harm LGBT children within Florida's public schools.". I don't really see the need to quote the whole thing as you've suggested, that would just make for one long quote. The in-text attribution proves Wikipdia isn't saying anything in its own voice. –– FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah I see what you're saying! I still think it's most likely that Bill Williams was trying to say that's a bad paraphrase (though I don't know for sure). Unless he clarifies here, I don't want to run afoul of WP:ONUS. I also don't really know if the paraphrase here—which was pretty minor—makes all that big of a difference—I mean likely widen[] cultural and political divides on issues of deep moral disagreement and lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse is pretty similar—in fact, the paraphrased version is longer! Still I want to clarify that I'd prefer a paraphrased version, and if no legitimate ground can be found for its omission, I'd support returning it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think your revised edits do a good job of explaining the Virginia article, and I was too hasty to initially remove it instead of editing it myself. I don't have any issue with the content's inclusion at this point. Bill Williams 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Jerome Frank Disciple I don't think there's any problem with Wikivoice, I was just being overzealous after other editors had previously added things in Wikivoice regarding the bill's impact and stating things like "the bill harms LGBT people" instead of qualifying it as the claims of a specific person or organization. I also was being overzealous in removing the Virginia article as irrelevant because other editors had added a ton of text in the Support section (which I have long since removed) about how X or Y politician supported a bunch of different laws, which the Support section then went on to describe in detail, all of which are extremely vaguely related to this specific article (e.g. some supporters of this article's law also opposed gay marriage, but that's not relevant for this article itself). People weren't using sources that connected this law to these other viewpoints and instead were just bringing in a ton of irrelevant things, but in this case the Virginia source specifically is connecting them so I think it's perfectly fine to mention. Bill Williams 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh fantastic! I know we're all overzealous at times—I sometimes have to fight my personal instinct to double down, so kudos for you for either not having that instinct or being able to overcome it. If you'd like to revert back to the prior version, feel free.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

"does not contain the word gay"

The article currently says that the act 'does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay"'. That's trivial; it's probably unusual for an act to contain the specific catchphrase by which it is commonly known. However, it's more important to note that the act does not actually contain the word "gay", nor does it contain any reference to any particular gender identity or sexual preference. I edited the article to make this clear, but my edit was reverted with a link to the above 'RfC on who refers to the law as "don't say gay"'. I don't believe that RfC is relevant to my edit. Can we discuss whether or not the article should point out that the act does not actually have the word "gay" nor is it specific about any particular identity/orientation? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 17:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

my edit was reverted with a link to the above RfC Sorry about that. 9 times out of 10 when someone modifies the language to remove "Don't Say Gay" from the article, it's from the lead. I was mostly operating on autopilot at that point and only realised after that you'd made the edit not to the lead but the Provisions section.
So at first glance, I suspect nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation is original research. The version that I restored is certainly verifiable to the three sources cited at the end of the section, whereas the text you've proposed is not. First question would be, do you have any reliable sources that make note of what you're proposing? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd say that a simple reading of the text of the act would affirm non-controversially that it says nothing about any specific gender identity or sexual orientation; this neither reaches nor implies a conclusion not stated by the act itself. I don't believe that an independent source is necessary, any more than we'd need a source to confirm that "both gender identity and sexual orientation are referred to twice within the legislation ". But I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about pointing out that the act doesn't contain the word "gay" at all. Would you be okay with simply changing does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay" (with or without the word explicitly)? - Brian Kendig ( talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I made an edit to change the text from does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay,".I feel this is the minimum we need. By analogy, it shouldn't be surprising that the United States Bill of Rights does not actually contain the words "Bill of Rights," though it would be noteworthy if it didn't contain the word "rights."
However, I feel that the sentence The Parental Rights in Education Act does not contain the word "gay," though both "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are referred to twice within the legislation is weaker than it should be. It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? The fact that it does not, and that a face-value reading of it would make it equally applicable to straight orientation as to any other, bears mention here. - Brian Kendig ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I think our description of the Act should reflect what's most common in secondary reliable sources.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 22:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? Not entirely. Like any word, gay has multiple meanings, and in this context it can refer to either people who call themselves gay, or homosexuality as a whole. I suspect, but cannot prove, that where sources describe this as the don't say gay act, they are referring to the broader definition of all homosexuals. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The act refers to teaching or discussion on "about sexual orientation or gender identity". I think the edit by Brian ('does not contain the word "gay"') is helpful as it would be surprising for a bill to contain informal language or a very specific phrase, and this fact is easily accepted by reading the text. But I disagree with saying "nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation", at least without more commentary on that aspect backed up by a good source. There are many who simply refuse to accept the concept of gender identity exists and reject the label "cis" for what they feel is "normal" or "not a pervert" or "not mentally ill" or whatever. So even mentioning gender identity is an acceptance that there is this concept and ones gender identity could be different from one's chromosomes or sex assigned at birth. And to a slightly lesser extent these days, heterosexual orientation is viewed as "normal" and so I would assume that discussing that a boy and a girl may fall in love, get married in a church, have children and so on would not be regarded as discussing sexual orientation. Whereas discussing that two boys might fall in love, get married in a church, and so on would trigger. So I think in a way it is pretty explicitly targeting sexual orientations and gender identity other than the heteronormative, it just doesn't need to mention gay or trans to do so. Hence, trying to discuss that aspect without the help of a source, would be original research IMO. -- Colin° Talk 07:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with his edit, the act doesn't mention "gay" specifically and of course it wouldn't mention "Don't Say Gay," hence readers should know that it doesn't mention the word "gay."

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

I've just finished creating the page Parental rights movement—as an aside, I would invite input to that article—I believe it would be good to link out from this article. I know this article doesn't have a See Also section, so I hesitate to suggest the creation of one just for this. Maybe another editor could suggest an alternative? Thanks. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done I've added a wikilink from "...parental rights..." in the "Organizations and other individuals" section. Marking as answered, but if you have a different suggestion, feel free to reopen. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
In the lede what if: "The law is most notable for its controversial sections which..." got changed to "The law, which purports to further parental rights, is most notable for its controversial sections which..."
I'm not sure if inserting this in the lede would require consensus on a hot-button article. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Saw something interesting in another article I wanted to add in the Aftermath section, but I can't edit it with the extended protection thing:

Beginning in 2022, several Republican lawmakers vowed to oppose any future attempt to extend the copyright term due to Disney's opposition of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. [1] 79.24.89.122 ( talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Martín, Hugo (May 11, 2022). "Republicans took away Disney's special status in Florida. Now they're gunning for Mickey himself". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 11, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.

Claims that Fox News uses the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines

I just removed a claim that Fox News used the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines and replaced it with a claim that Fox News affiliates have used the term in headlines. The original claim, based on the given reference, is between misleading and outright false, possibly intentionally so. The supporting reference linked to a local Fox affiliate in Cleveland [4], but the Fox affiliate explicitly notes on their website that article was from AP. The Wikipedia reference, however, claimed the website was a " Fox News" (including Wikilink); one would have click on the source to realize it was not the actual "Fox News" website.

After looking into it, the vast majority of articles from Fox News that involve the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" are outright calling the term "false" or are otherwise attacking or attempting to dispel or disprove the term (as would be expected). The closest thing I could find to the actual Fox News website using it was the headline, "Former Florida state rep who sponsored 'Don't Say Gay' bill breaks silence after prison sentence: 'Dark days'" [5]. However, the same article states, "sponsoring a parental rights bill Democrats referred to as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill" and "The bill sparked a national firestorm as Democrats and media outlets quickly dubbed the bill "Don't Say Gay" legislation despite the word gay not appearing anywhere in the bill's text." In summary, the original reference should not be used to support the claim that Fox News has used the headline "'Don't Say Gay' bill". One could possibly argue that Fox News did use it in a headline based on the one I discussed, but I would probably consider this a half truth when considering the broader context of not only the language of the article using it, but the overwhelming number of headlines and articles from Fox News explicitly attacking the term. While I added a source from a Fox News affiliate and corrected the article to say that it is from a Fox News affiliate, I don't know if a Fox News affiliate using the term is notable for the article, or if the entire reference to "Fox News" using the term should be removed. Wikipedialuva ( talk) 06:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act&oldid=1215064713"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE