Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sarcasm in tone?

Anyone else feeling like the tone in the final paragraph is not encyclopedic but sarcastic? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Which one? The "Legal Challenges" heading? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. What other bills' pages include the nickname given to it by critics in the first sentence?

It is fine to include the "Don't Say Gay" nickname, but it should be further down.

It would be like if the page for the Estate Tax began by calling the bill "The Death Tax." It is a partisan talking point. 2603:8001:3A00:4A00:6134:4396:7AF8:79F0 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

See my reply below for my response to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"The bill gained a majority of parents' support"

Which source supports this statement, which was recently added? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is based on the poll, but you just labeled the pollster as "non-neutral" below without citing any reliable sources, so I am not sure how to address your question. At any rate, I think your approach is not good w.r.t. NPOV. A RfC may be needed. Normchou ^💬 04:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that content isn’t supported by the source that follows it. My "approach" is for content to be cited by sources. A suspect poll by a partisan source in another source altogether is not a recommended approach. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It's based on your interpretation of the poll. A reliable source needs to explicitly state that the bill is indeed supported by a majority of parents. Wikipedia cannot make that conclusion on it's own. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

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)

Not exactly sure how not allowing teachers to groom 5-9 year olds and teach divisive curriculum is an “attack on public education”

Sounds like you’re just trying to project and stramwan Dyldyl9 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no common name. That's just the name used by critics. Even NPR mentions that . Conservative-leaning sources like Fox News simply refer to it as HB 1557 Databased (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's a feature of where in the world I live (UK), all of the major reliable media sources (The Telegraph, The Times, Sky News UK, The Guardian, BBC, The Independent) refer to it as the "Don't Say Gay" bill in their headlines. Even The Daily Mail, one of our least reliable and most right-wing leaning tabloids refers to it as such. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well Conservative sources WOULD refert to it that way now, wouldn't they? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Heh, Mandy Rice-Davies definitely does apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the first part of this comment ... the law does not prohibit discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity, but does prohibit instruction in these subjects. Talk about these issues is ok, but developing a lesson plan or prepared point of view and then teaching that to students in grades K-3 is prohibited. See https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF. A plain reading of the law indicates that "Don't Say Gay" is an attempt to misrepresent its content.Mygfisanut (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We stick to reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Despite your bias, those aren't conspiracies but actually put forth by educational institutions. Scatoogle (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CRT is a college subject. Any claim that it's being thought in public schools to pre college age students is simply false. Just as claims that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children into "gender ideology" (whatever that means) is nothing more than a cosnpiracy theory. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:53, 29 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)

Project Blitz?

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 sounds like it's important. Do you have any reliable secondary sources on that? Incidentally, that Project Blitz article strikes me as biased. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t had time to look, and I’ve been trying not to follow this issue to keep my blood pressure low. This kind of topic gets me riled up. I see that David Barton and Wallbuilders have been going after Disney for years and the Kochocracy have been beating the drum as well, so I’m sure there’s a Handmaid and a bill mill behind it somewhere. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources do indeed make the connection between this bill and Project Blitz, then the article will need to reflect that, but someone has to do the legwork, and you're the one who brought this up. This talk page is specifically about improving the article in question. It's not a forum to vent about how angry right wing shenigans make you, as justified as that anger is. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone can do the legwork, which is why I raised the question for others. Keep your personal comments about me to yourself and focus on doing the legwork I requested, otherwise keep quiet. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: thanks to the IP for pissing me off. You motivated me to get to the bottom of this BS and locate the connection to Project Blitz. It’s Dennis Baxley, who for some strange reason, isn’t mentioned in this or any other article about the bill, even though he’s the one who originally introduced it. Baxley is on the Steering Council of the Conservative Baptist Network, which is connected to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL) (which Baxley promoted in 2021). The NACL is a bill mill based on Project Blitz before it was outed in the media by investigative journalists. NACL admittedly uses the bill mill model of the Koch-connected American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push Christian nationalism. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from personal attacks, I'm trying to help.

2. Don't assume any wikipedia user will any work just because you demand it from them. As a general rule, if you want something changed, but aren't willing to do it yourself, you shouldn't demand anyone else to do it for you.

3. Wikipedia isn't the place to rant about how angry you are. Please follow the site's proper guidelines.

Now in regards to your actual post, The information you're presenting is a social media post from last year, and a couple of 4 year old articles on a far right organization, but nothing specifically tieing Baxley to this particular bill. You need to present reliable sources specifically stating that the bill originates from Baxley and the NACL. Without that, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The material is already fully sourced in the article. The material I’ve presented above is supplemental. You’re not helping, you’re just confusing the issues. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Public Opinion Strategies

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)

Please list RSes that say "this pollster is unreliable/biased". Otherwise, we should give WP:DUE weight to these results. Normchou ^💬 04:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but the redirect page clearly and unambiguously describes the pollster as a Republican operative whose polling organization only serves the Republican Party. And that entire article is sourced. Further, it is a suspect poll given its partisanship; describing it as Republican is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source on the poll data is the Wall Street Journal, which is regarded as reliable, and the information is that "Public Opinion Strategies" claims the bill is popular, not that it actually is. The source covering this poll has to specifically describe the polling organization as unreliable. The way it is now, specifying that it is a republican pollig firm appears to be good though. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Several points: the WSJ is generally considered a RS for news stories, not necessarily for opinion pieces.[2] In any event, that’s not the primary issue. The problem is that the WSJ opinion piece was cherry picked to highlight the POS poll,[3] while ignoring contrary findings in the same piece[4] as well as the caveat ("No poll is dispositive, and the surveys aren’t unanimous"). On the other hand, FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings rate POS higher than both UNF and Ipsos in terms of accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction of Bill

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)

"No mention of Gay in it"

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)

I agree. A genral reiteration of statements made by critics and supporters strikes me as WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lack of proper explanation of how this bill would affect LGBTQ youth and proper explanation of how this is the deliberate purpose of the bill as opposed to anything else proponents of the bill are saying is a major shortcoming of the article. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, do we actually have any reliable sources giving such an explanation of how this bill would affect its targeted demographics? Ideally these would come from from policy experts, legal commentators, and the like. If we don't have those sources, then we can't include any such analysis ourselves as it would be a very obvious form of original research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So far the article only focuses on the part about instruction regarding sexual orientation in under 3rd grade, which is unfortunate because a lot of the other parts of the law are actually much more dangerous for LGBT kids IMO. The law also states- "At the beginning of the school year, each school district shall notify parents of each healthcare service offered at their student's school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service." Notably, this provision is not limited to certain grades and will undeniably result in the denial of mental health services to many students, some of whom may be having questions about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. The law also throws out confidentiality for students receiving those services, and requires schools to notify parents when students access them while allowing parents to see all records.

Supporters say that this is good because parents have a right to know all things about their kids so they can ensure the response is the one that they agree with. Critics obviously believe that the best option is for students to have judgement-free safe spaces, and that denying their identity is going to lead to further mental health issues. Here is an article from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/04/florida-dont-say-gay-bill-children-mental-health) that could be a good starting source for the impact this will have on LGBT kids. Johnnyg150 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. I say we should include it, unless someone has any objections. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 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)

There have been multiple RFC's on both articles that prominently featured the subject prior to this article being created. Users generally agreed that a per WP:COMMONNAME, "Don't Say Gay Bill" is what the bill should be referred to as, and it makes perfect sense, to me at least. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I too would be happy with such a move, though given that it is likely to be a contentious and challenged move we need to follow the procedures at WP:PCM. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"that denying their identity is going to lead to further mental health issues." A bit of an understatement. Part of the concerns I have read on this law is that it legalizes outing of students by school personnel, and may lead to physical abuse by the student's family. Dimadick (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Are these concerns discussed in reliable secondary sources? If so, it would be helpful if you provided links, so they could be added. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

See for example the following article of the West Orange Times & Observer: Florida House Bill 1557: What it says, and what it doesn't:

• "School district personnel may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. This subparagraph does not prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that permit school personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01. " Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Okay, sorry for the confusion. The paragraph that you provided is extremely convoluted and took some time to comprehend exactly what it's saying. Upon trying to decypher it, I'm getting the impression that this provision permist an exception from informing parents "if a reasonable person would believe" that it could lead to abuse. This sounds like the exact opposite of what you described, unless there's some kind of hidden catch in the dodgy wording or the fuzzy term that is "if a reasonable person would believe". Now of course me making that conclusion is original research, so I have to ask again are there reliable sources that explicitly say the bill could lead to outing children to abusive parents? 46.97.170.50 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality & missing key information

• Neutrality

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. "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

• Missing Key Information

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. Cadenrock1 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

kindergarten through grade 3 clarification

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)

"Falsely claimed"

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;

• WP:NPOV

and

• WP:IMPARTIAL

2601:1C0:5301:4260:5B7E:4228:D1A7:600D (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it strictly does violate those policirs, and I also think the statement that the claim is false does not need a cite per WP:BLUE and “obviously a hyperbolic insult”; BUT I also decided it’s so obvious it doesn’t need to be spoonfed to the readers. Dronebogus (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

RS cited state the claims are false. Rab V (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of NYT & CBS

This revert seems problematic. I don’t see what’s wrong with using these sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, with regard to the alternative names, regardless of what supporters or opponents refer to it as, it is indeed commonly known the as the "Don't Say Gay act" or a variation thereof. All reliable sources refer to the act using that name, or a variation thereof, as the primary name for the act, including all prominent news sources from across the domestic political spectrum as well as prominent international news sources that use that name in their headlines. While it is true that this is a name that opponents have labelled it, it is nonetheless what the act is commonly known as. Indeed, per WP:COMMONNAME, one could argue that this article should be located at "Don't Say Gay act" or a variation thereof, given that this is the name it is commonly known by. Furthermore, WP:NPOVNAME states that the common name of the subject of an article is to be used as the name of the article, even if it a non-neutral name, because "the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" as stated in the policy. It is rather generous to proponents of the act to locate it at "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act", despite the fact that it is rarely known by that name, or a variation thereof, in common usage. The only reason why it is reasonable to maintain the article at this title is because there are several variations of the alternative names, such as "Don't Say Gay act", "Don't Say Gay bill", "Don't Say Gay or Trans act", "Don't Say Gay or Trans bill", etc. So it is simply more efficient to have the article at its formal name and mention the common alternative names in the lead with the accurate description that these are the names that the act is commonly known by.

Secondly, with regard to the section of the act that you inserted in the lead, it is a section of the act that is rarely, if ever, discussed, mentioned in multiple reliable sources, or a matter of common knowledge regarding the act. It is WP:UNDUE to insert that relatively unknown section in the lead, especially in such a prominent manner with extended commentary. As is well known and you are no doubt aware, the most prominent sections of the act, which are the most commonly discussed, mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and a matter of common knowledge regarding the act, are the sections regarding the prohibition of classroom discussion or classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through to third grade or in any manner deemed to be against state standards in all grades, regarding the prohibition of the adoption of procedures and student support forms that maintain the confidentially of information disclosed by students including of their sexual orientation or gender identity from parents, and regarding the requirement that public schools bear all the costs of all lawsuits by aggrieved parents. It is these sections that should be mentioned in the lead as it these sections that are mentioned by multiple reliable sources and given prominence by multiple reliable sources, are widely discussed, and are a matter of common knowledge regarding the act.

While the sources that you used are reliable sources, per WP:WEIGHT, the article should represent what is mentioned in reliable sources "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements" as stated in the policy.

--PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:29, 8 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)

The name "Don't Say Gay" is actually way more common than the actual formal name of the act. If anything, the name of this article should reflect that and be changed to "Florida's Don't Say Gay bill" or something similar. This is simply how this law is generally referred to, and not only by opponents in particular. Guycn2 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Excessive Citations

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)

Hello,

As of this edit, the excessive citations template I have added has been removed by @PoliticalPoint. Could you please explain why it has been removed? All of my previous points on there being too many citations still applies.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRNC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:22, 1 March 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)

Accurate Edit Removed

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)

It is never claimed in the article that it does. The explanation for its nickname is given in the third paragraph of the lead section. FranklinOfNull (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed that it does either. However, naming this legislation as the "Don't Say Gay bill" all over the Wikipedia article implies that it does indeed state such. Explanations of the "why" are somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't, and thus has the high possibility of misleading readers. 149.101.1.114 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The bill is most commonly known by its colloquial name, using it in the article makes it clearer for readers. FranklinOfNull (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand. The point of contention is my accurate edit being labeled "vandalism" or "not constructive." Neither are true. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I do apologize if I came off as brusque, but my message (which was this template) doesn't use the word vandalism. I admit that I am sometimes inclined to see malice when there is none, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting your actions. FranklinOfNull (talk) 18:18, 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)

@JArthur1984 I was not the one to request a third opinion, but I don't believe it to be currently necessary. Thank you for your time. FranklinOfNull (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Understood, and I will be willing to return if the other editor requests. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

New Proposed Version of the Lead

@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)

@InvadingInvader: Firstly, you should note that the version of the lead that you copied and pasted onto your draft page appears to be from after an IP vandal had vandalized the article and removed both the phrases and templates that refer to the common names of the act. Secondly, that additional sentence would not be in accordance with WP:WEIGHT as there has not been any widespread passage of derivative legislation nor of expansionary legislation. As such, unless and until that happens, it is WP:UNDUE to insert that sentence in the lead. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to mention that the passage of derivative legislation or expansionary legislation has been largely thwarted throughout the United States. Consider, for example, the defeat of derivative legislation in the deep red state of Wyoming (see here), the stripping of the controversial section prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades from derivative legislation in the deep red state of Utah (see here), and the removal from consideration in committee of expansionary legislation in Florida (see here). Thirdly, the opposition to the act is what characterizes the notability and prominence of the act. The opposition to the act is why this article meets the standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Without the opposition to the act, this article would not exist. So it is perfectly in accordance with WP:WEIGHT for the opposition to the act to be predominant throughout the article, including the lead. Fourthly, your concern with regard to "blanket terminology to mischaracterize certain groups as unanimously being in favor of the law" can be resolved by modifying the wording of that sentence in a minimal manner without sustainability altering it, such as through the use of the modifier "many", which would clarify that portion in an accurate manner. Fifthly, your concern with regard to phrasing for the United States has already been addressed. The United States is an appropriate metonymy, specifically a synecdoche, more specifically a totum pro parte, to refer to the federal government of the United States, which is consistent with the tota pro partibus in the rest of the sentence. It is false that "the usage of the United States is more akin to intergovernmental affairs' article with concepts outside of the United States". Consider, for example, numerous federal court cases such as the various United States v. Texas cases and the various New York v. United States cases. When the federal officials determine a position on a certain matter in an official capacity, that is considered to be the position of the United States, in both a domestic context and an international context. Sixthly, your concern with regard to the mention of parents and families can also be likewise resolved with the modifier as mentioned in the fourth concern addressed. As for the outcome of the 2022 Florida gubernatorial election, that it is largely due to COVID-19 politics, a turnout collapse compared to the previous gubernatorial election (62.6% in 2018 compared to 53.6% in 2022), and a surge in the disparity of campaign expenditure compared to the previous gubernatorial election ($46.8 million by Gillum and $52.4 million by DeSantis in 2018 compared to $31.3 million by Crist and $122.4 million by DeSantis in 2022). Finally, perhaps the sentence mentioning the student walkouts can be condensed in a manner that describes the events rather than mentions all the chants, but it should not be overly condensed as that would not in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, given that the student walkouts are among the most prominent aspects of the opposition to this legislation, garnering significant news coverage. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

First, I took a look at the vandalism reverts you made recently, and they don't look like vandalism. It's a wording change which was constructive and had good intentions, albeit maybe not the best in execution. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The edits by the IP vandal were clearly vandalism. This edit here, which was was reverted, removed the templates for the short description and the redirect. This edit here, which was reverted removed the common names of the act. It is false to say that it was merely "a wording change which was constructive and had good intentions" when it was manifestly vandalism. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

First one, I get it. Second one, though, was it entirely vandalism? I'm not sure if it's exactly that. Both the IP and I share concerns that there is too much of a bias in the tone and writing on the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the United States in phrasing, include all the explanations you want, but does it help our readers? That's a big fat NO. You don't help our readers understand beyond a footnote, and that's not good enough. This isn't a legal blog; this is an encyclopedia articles. Our readers are much better off using the most accurate and indisputable terminology and phrasing available, and the US in phrasing is not doing that job. If you want to go write in 24/7 legal blog tone, consider doing it on Citizendium or an advocacy blog. Please also work on your phrasing on talk pages to imply less of an managerial tone on this article; as I am getting the sense your phrasing choice can easily be interpreted as WP:OWN. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should indeed have formal prose similar to that of a legal document. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not a traditional encyclopedia, though. We're Wikipedia. We exist for our readers to free information, not require readers to look up every other word and pour through footnotes. Perhaps if you're interested in writing more in a formal tone, maybe not only contribute to Wikipedia but also Citizendium? They're more open to a more academically-toned article format in everything. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your lead also has no source for parents in general being opposed to the law. Should be ground for automatic removal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Family Equality Council citation also refers to parents, but, nevertheless, several more reliable sources have been added as citations for that reference. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFC on the lead

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.

---

Discussion

• Option 2. The lead is more neutrally formed in this instance and contains more detail about the entirety of the article, as per MOS:LEAD. While my personal opinion stands against this law and what it stands for, the lead has to be very carefully maneuvered as while this is WP:FRINGE, a significant minority sadly does still support the law and the continued practices. I believe that my version is able to use more accurate language when it comes to the opposition, condenses the opposition into the final two paragraphs instead of sprinkling it across multiple parts of the lead. Moreover, the writing of the article seems to hurt the accuracy of the article and imply false standards. The most alarming example is the use of metonym "the United States" over mentioning the Biden Administration or the US Federal Government; while @PoliticalPoint has previously defended this use as a comparison to court cases like the many New York v. United States cases, it can be more accurately described and too easily mislead unfamiliar readers to believe that all of the United States opposes it. It is wrong both to assume that both all of the US and all of the US federal government opposes the bill, especially when US legislators have introduced legislation just like this to apply to the entire nation, regardless of whatever Latin phrase or footnote could justify such usage as it will ultimately hurt the article's accuracy. The Family Equality Council is also inappropriate as a source to attribute to families' opposition to the act. The organization stands for LGBT+ families and LGBT+ ally families, certainly a noble cause, but it is factually wrong to say that families are opposed to the act, and even worse when an advocacy group which doesn't have the backing of all or near-all "families" is implied in this article through this wording to stand for this. A footnote does not serve as a good-enough measure of disclaiming this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As already stated above in prior discussions and reiterated here for the benefit of other editors: The opposition to the act is why this article meets the standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Without the opposition to the act, this article would not exist. So it is perfectly in accordance with WP:WEIGHT for the opposition to the act to be predominant throughout the article, including the lead. The United States is an appropriate metonymy, specifically a synecdoche, more specifically a totum pro parte, to refer to the federal government of the United States, which is consistent with the tota pro partibus in the rest of the sentence. Consider, for example, numerous federal court cases such as the various United States v. Texas cases and the various New York v. United States cases. When the federal officials determine a position on a certain matter in an official capacity, that is considered to be the position of the United States, in both a domestic context and an international context. Your concern with regard to the attribution of the Family Equality Council to the opposition of families was already resolved by the addition of the modifier "many" in front of the list of opponents in that sentence, which clarified that portion in an accurate manner. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See Proof by assertion. Moreover, does a totum pro parte help our readers or just make things more ambiguous? Likely the latter. The US hasn't even sued the state itself over the law yet, if it does. Repeating your arguments could be seen as bludgeoning the process. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The statements from prior discussions above are reiterated here for the benefit of other editors. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: The lead is accurate, balanced, neutral, and in accordance with all relevant Wikipedia policies including WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT. It describes the relevant provisions of the act that causes it to meet the standards for WP:NOTABILITY, describes the legislative process that resulted in the passage of act, details the reactions of the main nationwide organization for LGBT rights in the United States and the main statewide organization for LGBT rights in Florida, describes the objections of the opposition, describes the opponents of the act, and summarizes the polling on the act. The lead appropriately gives predominance to the opposition to the act, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, as that it is what causes the act to meet the standard for WP:NOTABILITY, with this article only existing precisely due to the opposition to this act. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As already stated above in prior discussions and reiterated here for the benefit of other editors, the problems with Option 2 are as follows: Firstly, the additional sentence referring to derivative legislation and expansionary legislation is not in accordance with WP:WEIGHT as there has not been any widespread passage of derivative legislation nor of expansionary legislation. As such, unless and until that happens, it is WP:UNDUE to insert that sentence in the lead. Indeed, it may be more appropriate to mention that the passage of derivative legislation or expansionary legislation has been largely thwarted throughout the United States. Consider, for example, the defeat of derivative legislation in the deep red state of Wyoming (see here), the stripping of the controversial section prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades from derivative legislation in the deep red state of Utah (see here), and the removal from consideration in committee of expansionary legislation in Florida (see here). Secondly, the opposition to the act is what characterizes the notability and prominence of the act. The opposition to the act is why this article meets the standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Without the opposition to the act, this article would not exist. So it is perfectly in accordance with WP:WEIGHT for the opposition to the act to be predominant throughout the article, including the lead. In contrast, Option 2 reduces the prominence of the opposition to the act and thereby induces a false balance that violates WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. Finally, the dispute between Disney and DeSantis is reduced from the more comprehensive and descriptive version to a version that fails to properly describe the sequence of events in that regard. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Earlier, I recommended trying to focus on single, small disputes and going from one to the other, such that the entire dispute is composed of chunks of differences that can more easily be resolved one at a time. Instead, this RFC involves multiple questions, which will not be easily resolved. Instead of asking for comments about all of these issues, break it down in simple chunks like you do in your supports up above. The dispute will be easier to resolve and we can all move on to bigger and better things. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with @Viriditas that the disputes regarding the lead are too many to resolve in one RFC. I believe that it would be better to review each paragraph one at a time and RFC for each paragraph if necessary. In my opinion, this basically asks if major changes to the lead should be made or if it should be reverted to the old one, since a lot of the edits to the article made previously were in part of the dispute. AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly this. I recommend shutting down this current RFC and using it as a learning experience, and starting a new RFC with maybe two or three short and simple questions, such as "Should the United States be used as a metonym?" followed by the preferred examples. Theoretically, you could add more than that as long as you broke it into smaller, digestible chunks for non-involved parties to comment on; RFCs work best when there is a simple, specific question, not a general question about two competing versions of a large lead section filled with multiple, disputed content issues. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let’s do that then. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Repeated citations

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)

If the citations share the same resource (like URL), I am all for reusing citations.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: No objection to the removal of duplicate citations, insofar as it is done in a careful and considered manner, as previous attempts to remove duplicate citations resulted in the complete removal of citations from the article and necessitated the rescue of citations by bots, as seen in the article revision history. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@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)

You're breaking SEVERAL redirects with your revert. such as HB 1069. The Florida Legislature website places them under titles describing what the legislature does, and I am placing these under bold titles as they are the official common name for the bill. Check the Florida legislature's website for the parental rights in education act, linked here. If you want to debold them, I'm not opposed to that, but keep the structure with the headings so that the redirects at least work. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You could have simply edited the section headings, as you have now done, instead of effectively undoing all those edits. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Family Equality Council does not represent all families, as implied by the wording of your version of the article. The organization is an advocacy group standing for LGBT families. Just read their own WP article. If you mentioned the families in the lead as LGBT families, then that would not be a problem, but it's a blatant and easily refuted lie to say that all families oppose the act. Look at DeSantis' win by 20 percentage points in his re-election bid for Florida governor. Google search photos of families at trump rallies. My own family friends SUPPORT the act, as much as I disagree with them. It's a blatant lie to say, or imply, that the family equality council represents all families. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As already stated above in a prior discussion and reiterated here: Your concern with regard to the attribution of the Family Equality Council to the opposition of families was already resolved by the addition of the modifier "many" in front of the list of opponents in that sentence, which clarified that portion in an accurate manner. The outcome of the 2022 Florida gubernatorial election is largely due to COVID-19 politics, a turnout collapse compared to the previous gubernatorial election (62.6% in 2018 compared to 53.6% in 2022), and a surge in the disparity of campaign expenditure compared to the previous gubernatorial election ($46.8 million by Gillum and $52.4 million by DeSantis in 2018 compared to $31.3 million by Crist and $122.4 million by DeSantis in 2022). Regardless, this matter has now been addressed and the issue has now been resolved. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Many? Relative to the national population, the Council only represents a few confirmed. "Many" as represented by the FEC is too big of an assumption. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to open this up to an RFC between your lead and my proposed lead since it seems like we cannot come to an agreement here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:39, 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)

Yeah I think it might have been an issue with the visual editor. Perhaps maybe there's a way to put them both under one footnote instead of copy-pasting the same one twice? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not copy-pasted. One simply transcludes the content of the other via reference. It's helpful to readers to see that footnote next to each phrase for clarity. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point...there seems to be a technical issue with the visual editor on that though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:29, 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)

Firstly, let me make clear to you that you have no more authority than me to revert. The same way you have asked me to discuss before reverting, if I revert your edits, discuss them and seek consensus. As an example, with the Donald Trump remarks, since I reverted them back to the original formatting I added, you're expected to start the discussion, not you revert them. If you'd like to self revert pending discussion, go ahead. Otherwise, you'd likely get reported for disruptive editing for this given further replications of this action. See WP:BRD for more information.

The Family Equality Council does not represent all families and parents. The Council is an advocacy organization advocating for equal rights between LGBT and heterosexual families. This is no doubt a noble cause, yet this would also inherently make the FEC a non-neutral source. Add a neutral source to support your claims, which you sort of did, but should do more of.

When it comes to Donald Trump, your edits are not supportive of our due weight policy. By inserting all of Trump's comments on LGBT issues not directly in response to the law, you're inflating the article with unnecessary information for a neutral encyclopedia (albeit if you're writing about Donald Trump's history with LGBT people, this is a VERY good addition). You're in the wrong place to be adding this information, and it does seem like you are letting your own personal views skew the article too much. I've elaborated further on this in a BLP Noticeboard report on the neutrality of this entire article, viewable at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:57, 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)

More importantly, I would dispute InvadingInvader’s claim that the gallery depicting the history of the proponents of the bill is somehow libelous. This is an extremely unusual claim, and I simply don’t see how it could be seriously entertained. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hear me out: I'm concerned that the gallery's role can too easily become a detriment for the article and that it has the double meaning of e Oakland Bing we a protest banner. No other article on legislation that I know of does that. Though factually true, the gallery too easily can be used by opposing activists to place shame on the victims role who signed/introduced/participated heavily in the passage of the bill. It's like "These are the people to protest against, tag on social media, put up". Even if not libelous, is it really necessary? We can just mention them by name, not by portrait. Too easily can this content hold a non-neutral meaning, and even if true. On the BLP noticeboard, even people who don't agree with the libel part (which I realize is far fetched but something which concerns me) question the necessity of the gallery (see WP:BLPN#Florida Parental Rights in Education Act). Again, no other legislation article I've ever read on WP does this. We're likely the only article that even has something like this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s certainly a more reasonable argument, but it’s not one I’m personally fond of or inclined to make. While I agree that a baseline level of uniformity is needed to effectively communicate, I disagree that each article should be treated the same and have the same layout, design, and style. In fact, I’m more of an experimentalist when it comes to this kind of argument, and prefer that articles do things differently to see which works best. In this instance, my concern is mostly with the layout and design of the gallery in question, not its use or content, so we differ in this regard. For example, I would prefer a layout that doesn’t interfere with mobile use as it currently does, which would mean designing it with several rows and limited width. So you can see, our concerns are very much at odds. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If we are to put someone's picture, could I suggest doing it on the sideline, and maybe only putting Harding and Baxley? Template:Ron DeSantis series already has this article linked, so we can use that to cover DeSantis. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

My primary concern was layout, which I have tried to remedy. I’m not all that concerned about the images themselves. That might be something quick and easy to put up for an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I support any proposed RFC on the issue of the image gallery. It covers only one major question, so it's not like the last RFC.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that someone's picture should be placed in the legislative history section, but not a whole gallery. On my display, the gallery is as big as the whole legislative history text.

I think a better idea is to try to obtain a video of one of those proceedings that passed the act (Florida government works are in the public domain by default). One could take stills from it and they could put a still image on the article. In my opinion, it would visualize the history of the act.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a picture of DeSantis signing the bill and a portrait of Baxley and Harding? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a better idea. Less work would need to be involved.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the UN officer, we're actually discussing reducing metonymy in another thread below this. It's something I personally feel like hurts the article as a whole, as too many interpretations are possible, and that more people than in actuality can be easily misinterpreted to oppose the bill. It's necessary to reduce so that our audiences get the most accurate results possible. Feel free to continue discussion i the other threads, but so far, even though only two people have responded, it's looking like that both of us wish to cut down on all this metonymy. For the purposes of centralizing discussion, I would request that you keep further comments on metonymy down in that respective thread. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:58, 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)

Saying that @InvadingInvader is going against their own statements is, in my opinion, not a great idea if they've expressed other concerns that apply to the situation.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. Trump's comment is covered by RS's, but it's small. Given that he's a prominent figure, though, a sentence should suffice. The path you are demonstrating to me is an All or Nothing approach to opponents. One could make a very convincing argument that what you in essence are doing is violating Due Weight policies yourself by unnecessary contextualizing. I myself contextualized appropriately with the link to an article about Trump.

When it comes to the lead, accuracy is more important than conciseness. I've long suggested just getting rid of the metonymy all together.

Finally, WP policy proves your last point to be plain old wrong. MOS:DUPLINK would your point to be wrong, as duplicate linking is only useful in the first mention after the lead outside of prose. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:FALSEBALANCE is clear that if the comment by Trump is to be included in the article, it must be properly and fully contextualized or otherwise omitted altogether, given that to do so otherwise would induce a false balance in the article, as already stated. Secondly, it is perfectly accurate to state parents in the lead, given that LGBT parents are obviously parents, as already stated. Finally, you have misread, given that there was no objection to your delinking of the duplicate links, as already stated. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What part of WP:FALSEBALANCE specifically? Second, that's not accurate enough, especially when there are still parents out there who oppose trans rights. Saying "parents" without any disambiguation falsely implies that all parents are against the bill. Third, we've stated that all of these guys are GOP before in the sentence. We're unduly mentioning the same thing again, to unnecessarily emphasize (and thereby emphasize undue weight) into the audience something they already know. Wikipedia isn't written from an activist point of view, even if they are on the moral high ground. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:03, 20 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)

With regard to the alteration of the lead, you didn't raise an objection in the appropriate thread nor there state as to why it shouldn't be altered. The appropriate thread has already been linked to you, but in case you need it again, see Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act#Metonyms in the final lead paragraph. This is borderline disruptive editing. With regard to alt names, you are wrong. MOS:ALTNAME states that significant alt names should be listed. HB is significant enough to designate the Florida House of Representatives; I even wikilinked HB to the Florida House of Representatives to make you happy in an attempt to compromise. At this point, your discussion participation is starting to look stonewalling/bludgeoning, so please tone down your comments and reverts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, WP:DRNC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When considering as to whether there is consensus or no consensus for a change, the entire article talk page, not merely a section, is taken into account. As already stated, 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. You are no doubt aware of all the various concerns raised across various discussions across various sections of the article talk page in this regard. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRNC. Let's wait for others to revert. It would help if you participated in the relevant discussion instead of choosing to follow WP:BRRR as opposed to WP:BRD. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRNC clearly states that ""No consensus" occurs only after a good faith discussion fails to result in a consensus". There have been multiple good faith discussions across the article talk page in this regard. You are no doubt aware of all these discussions. WP:NOCONSENSUS clearly states that with regard to "No consensus after discussion" as to "What happens when a good faith discussion concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action?" that "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." --PoliticalPoint (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are more open supporters than blatant opposers to the proposal; participates in the discussion and explain why my changes would harm the article. This is the THIRD time I've asked you to participate in the relevant discussion today alone, and at least the fourth overall. You're claiming no consensus when there are more people so far who want the changes. Participate in the discussion if you want to keep the metonymny. If you're going to keep reverting without discussing, we're beyond BRD. I've started a thread ALREADY. I cannot emphasize enough there is a discussion below. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So far, the only reverts to my reduction of metonymy were Viriditas, who preferred an explanation, and you. Participate in the discussion below if you don't want to reduce metonymy. I've linked it already today, or just scroll down. You're starting to engage in WP:Disruptive editing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I would welcome an RFC on the metonyms to resolve this once and for all, so we can move on to other concerns about this article. In my opinion, we should solve each issue one at a time.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The norm on Wikipedia is that when you are reverted by an editor, you seek consensus for your change on the article talk page and do not attempt to make the same change again. If more than one editor has reverted you, which is the case as you yourself admitted that @Viriditas also reverted you in this regard in your earlier attempt to make such an extreme alteration of the lead, then you absolutely must seek consensus for your change on the article talk page and absolutely must not attempt to make the same change again. As to the discussion below, the last time the statements in this regard were reiterated, you made the false allegation that "Repeating your arguments could be seen as bludgeoning the process." (see here), which makes your demand this time rather hypocritical and inconsistent with your previous false allegation. WP:Disruptive editing indicts you, given that it states that "A disruptive editor is an editor who [...] Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors. [...] Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. [...] Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." As you were reminded at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act, these various disputes over the article began when you suddenly began removing enormous portions of the article, both citations and prose (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc) and were initially reverted by @Viriditas (see here and here) because, as correctly noted by @Viriditas, the "Edit summary and massive deletions don’t align" and "edit summaries and edits not aligning" in reference to the edits by you. You engaged in the the very definition of disruptive editing per WP:Disruptive editing. Ever since then you have been in engaging in disruptive editing in violation of WP:Disruptive editing in an attempt to induce a false balance in the article in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE by sanitizing the sponsors and supporters of the act, sanitizing the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the scientific evidence refuting the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the opponents (who are experts, pediatricians, psychologists, the United Nations, etc), and constantly falsely alleging libel and slander, contrary to the definitions of those terms, for content that contextualizes the claims and comments of the sponsors and supporters of the act or even for something as simple as a gallery of the sponsors of the act. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Alleging libel and slander? Yes, @InvadingInvader did. Constantly doing so? If I remember correctly, they only alleged so once. If I have missed some allegations, please enlighten me (no, really, this isn't sarcastic, though I admit it does sound that way).

AEagleLionThing (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be more focused on attacking me rather than coming to a consensus, and I'm not convinced of the argument that I'm introducing a false balance in the first place when I'm just treating politically contentious language as politically contentious. The stuff that's happening in this act is (sadly) not as universally condemned as say the Armenian Genocide or American Slavery. You have not responded to the metonymy argument yet again after pleas for you to do so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You made a false allegation regarding disruptive editing when it is you who is engaging in disruptive editing in violation of WP:Disruptive editing, as already stated. As to the discussion below, the last time the statements in this regard were reiterated, you made the false allegation that "Repeating your arguments could be seen as bludgeoning the process." (see here), which makes your demand this time rather hypocritical and inconsistent with your previous false allegation, as already stated. There is no consensus for your extreme alterations of the lead and the debate section, as evidenced from multiple discussions throughout the article talk page, as already stated. You must not attempt to make the same changes again without consensus per WP:NOCONSENSUS, as already stated. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to follow BRD, do your part and discuss why the "extreme" changes are not helpful for the article. This is the SEVENTH time in two (starting to become three) days I've asked you to discuss, and a request to discuss in an appropriate thread isn't bludgeoning. Discuss the content, not my behavior. When editors like myself run into disruptive editing, sometimes we feel compelled or forced to escalate. You're misinterpreting "bludgeoning" arguments; I'm only asking you to discuss the content and cut the crap when it comes to me. You're also seemingly starting to call everything I do to this page "extreme"; tone it down PLEASE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Again, as to the discussion below, the last time the statements in this regard were reiterated, you made the false allegation that "Repeating your arguments could be seen as bludgeoning the process." (see here), which makes your demand this time rather hypocritical and inconsistent with your previous false allegation, as already stated. Again, it is you who made a false allegation regarding disruptive editing when it is you who is engaging in disruptive editing in violation of WP:Disruptive editing, as already stated. Your false allegations of disruptive editing, your threats to escalate, your attempts to impose your changes without consensus, and your use of expletives and personal attacks are in the violation of WP:Disruptive editing, WP:INCIVIL, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and a myriad other Wikipedia policies. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Crap is not an expletive. Prior to you placing your objections in the appropriate talk page thread, at least per the headcount there, it was 2 to 2 participants favoring; unanimous. It's still only 3-2, not unanimous but a lot closer to 70% support or oppose than 50/50. Reverting without discussing in the appropriate thread repeatedly is disruptive. I ask you to stop this silly thread of attacking my conduct and we just move onto other threads. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the second paragraph

Proposing that we rewrite the second paragraph as follows:

Introduced by Florida state assembly members Joe Harding and Dennis Baxley, the legislation is generally supported by the Republican Party. In the Florida House of Representatives, the Parental Rights in Education act passed in a 69 to 47 vote on February 24, 2022; with 68 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting for it; and 40 Democrats and 7 Republicans voting against it. The Florida Senate passed the bill in a 22 to 17 vote on March 8, 2022; with 22 Republicans voting for it; and 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting against it. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, signed the bill on March 28, 2022, and the act went into effect on July 1 of that year. Its passage has prompted the introduction of various similar laws within other Republican states and the federal government, and Florida legislators have introduced bills expanding the scope of the law.

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)

No response since; pinging recent editors @AEagleLionThing @Viriditas @PoliticalPoint for their opinions InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I support the proposed version of the second paragraph. It provides more context about the legislative history of the act, and it will hopefully move the statements by the Human Rights Campaign and Equality Florida, which, in my opinion, should be in the opposition paragraphs of the lead.

However, I have some problems with the quote …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 law instead. 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.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm personally open to the idea of making everything "Republican" instead of "GOP" if it sounds more encyclopedic. Also, I'd be willing to modify that sentence on more legislation. Would you also suggest it necessary to note Harding as a former Florida representative, or is that not necessary? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Harding should be described as a former representative if he was in office when he the bill was enacted.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: No objection to mentioning Joe Harding and Dennis Baxley, but it might make the lead too long and is perhaps unnecessary, given that they are already mentioned in the infobox. Nonetheless, there is no fundamental objection to mentioning them. The statement "the legislation is generally supported by the Republican Party" is vague and possibly inaccurate, given that it might make the lead too long and might give readers that false impression this legislation has been endorsed by the national Republican party, which is not the case. Moreover, there is no need for that portion as the paragraph gives an account of the vote by political party. Disagree with InvadingInvader to move the direct the response of the LGBT rights organizations to DeSantis signing the bill away from the paragraph where it is most relevant. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I question why we need to even place that stuff on the opposition in the same paragraph. It makes the paragraph off topic. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading this, I think that "by" could be replaced by "among" and "members" could be added after "Republican Party". If that isn't enough, I don't mind removing it altogether.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Metonyms in the final lead paragraph

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)

I support a rewording of the sentence. This is the English Wikipedia; English is spoken in many places across the globe, but not all English speakers are familiar with American metonyms. In addition, to fix other issues with the sentence, even if the phrase "many" was added, the sentence would still be full of clutter with too many footnotes. In my opinion, it would be better to place prominent organizations in the article text itself.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoliticalPoint If you are going to keep reverting my edits without discussing them without seeing that so far there is agreement, consider participating in this discussion on reducing metonymy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: The statements in this regard have been reiterated many times before in multiple discussions above, but, nonetheless, will be reiterated again. As stated before, the United States is an appropriate metonymy, specifically a synecdoche, more specifically a totum pro parte, to refer to the federal government of the United States, which is consistent with the tota pro partibus in the rest of the sentence. Similarly, the United Nations is an appropriate metonymy, specifically a synecdoche, more specifically a totum pro parte, to refer to the United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which is consistent with the tota pro partibus in the rest of the sentence. When the President of the United States makes a statement in an official capacity and takes a position in a official capacity that is considered to be a statement by the United States and the position of the United States. Similarly, when an official of the United Nations makes a statement in an official capacity and takes a position in a official capacity that is considered to a statement by the United Nations and the position of the United Nations. It is the standard and the norm to state it as such. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not helping the article though, as it is making the article too vague. Just naming organizations representing in the lead directly instead makes the article more accurate, and Latin phrases don't help our readers get the actuality of the article. The use of metonymy inappropriately increases the possibility confusion that all members of a group support or oppose the act. I'm all for a shorter lead, but not when we're sacrificing accuracy. More over, your totum stuff doesn't apply when the US itself hasn't filed a lawsuit to block the law yet; it's only words with no true effect (comparable to the actuality of the emancipation proclamation, or Emmanuel Macron's tweets objecting to Dobbs v Jackson). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have already said, the use of metonymy can confuse readers who are not familiar with the federalist structure of the US. In my opinion, it is not necessary to the article.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring the Opposition Section

@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)

@InvadingInvader: No objection to the removal of any duplicate links. Your previous attempt to restructure this section, however, resulted in unwieldy paragraphs that made it difficult for readers to read through. The current structure is easy for readers to read through. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it is too repetitive. If multiple similar organizations are saying the same thing, do we need to say it all the time? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that multiple statements that are essentially expressing the same idea from several organizations is easier to read than combining them so that the article says that they all said the same general idea?

AEagleLionThing (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be simpler to say that several organizations in several categories stated that the law harms children instead of repeating the stating that the law harms children part for each category of organizations.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. Phrase it as this: "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)

"Baseless, discredited, unscientific"

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 currently being discussed up above. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We're actually discussing this further below. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)