Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Replace "Baseless, discredited, and unscientific" with "discredited and widely scrutinized"

The title says it all. "Baseless, discredited, and unscientific" is too unencyclopedia, and given that this topic is not as fringe as say American Slavery or the Armenian Genocide (especially considering how widely supported it sadly is), I propose to more neutrally phrase this article, let's replace every instance of "Baseless, discredited, and unscientific" with "discredited and widely scrutinized". It's a lot more encyclopedic sounding, and akin to how we deal with a lot of other fringe political topics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"Widely scrutinized" doesn't really capture it, but we can surely do better in the writing department than repeating the phrase "baseless, discredited, and unscientific" five times in four paragraphs. How about mixing it up a bit, and throwing in a "contrary to scientific consensus", etc. Maybe combine a couple of the people who made the same claim rather than repeat the description. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. Gonna insert some ideas into there; we'll see if anyone reverts me. I'd further suggest that we cut down on all the elaboration for certain figures (especially notable figures not key to the bill like Gabbard and Trump) and instead wikilink their political positions articles/sections in. Example:
Tulsi Gabbard said XXX. Gabbard has been noted for making statements contrary to the scientific consensus on LGBT+ rights and opposing their expansion. Donald Trump, who has his own history with opposing LGBT+ rights, also supported the bill, though intentionally kept his comments on the bill limited in an interview with The Washington Post. Some Republican US senators, such as Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida, and Tim Scott of South Carolina, have either come out in support of the act and/or introduced bills mirroring the provisions of the act.
This would help with keeping commenter's prominence due while still linking commenters' history, as @PoliticalPoint, who has previously reverted edits of mine like this for removing context while citing WP:FALSEBALANCE, is concerned with. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think your example adequately addresses the problems of some areas in the article. It reduces the duplication of the same claim, as well as placing the claim first, then the rebuttals by good sources.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Rhododendrites that "Widely scrutinized" doesn't really capture it. Any replacement, if at all, should strongly convey the true nature of the extreme false claims that are completely contrary to scientific evidence. This edit here by @InvadingInvader, which was reverted, trimmed the statements to the extent that it failed to convey the true nature of the extreme false claims and the extent to which these extreme false claims are in opposition to scientific evidence. The current wording best conveys the the true nature of the extreme false claims and the extent to which these extreme false claims are in opposition to scientific evidence. Disagree with @InvadingInvader to cut down on all the elaboration as that is necessarily for contextualization, as stated many times before in multiple discussions above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that all this elaboration actually creates undue weight on objectors That stuff belongs in the articles of the subject, not here. Wikilinks should be appropriate. It's potentially itself a violation of FALSEBALANCE, and including stuff not directly related to the article is undue weight and wipes away our neutrality into making this article more about attacking its supporters by unnecessarily highlighting every bad thing they've done with regard to LGBT issues. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Your edit here was reverted per above, but there is no objection to you removing the duplicate links again. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know what this should be replaced with but it's certainly needs to be removed ASAP, as it it's a blatant violation of WP core polices of no original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. WP:SYNTH: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. What is being done with the quotes of DeSantis and Baxley is it's be connected with separate sources that make no mention whatsoever of the quotes or the FPREA: this is textbook synthesis. If you want to add something similar than you need to go find reliable sources that describe the comments made by Baxley and DeSantis as false, misleading, wrong, etc. Not go and do your own research about what you think there comments are addressing and try to do get the WP:TRUTH. On top of that, the repetition of the same sentence clause is just bad prose and there is an extra BLP element that I haven't even touched on. @Rhododendrites: In response to your edit summary, relaying over what RS say the supporters of this act say about it is not advocating a fringe theory. We aren't saying these theories in wiki voice or presenting them as though they are true, merely saying what the prominent supporters of the act have said. Also, Rhododendrites, you removed my replacement of the unreliable Newsweek with greenlit The Hill. I'm assuming this was not on purpose please revert that at least. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• There's a frequent topic of debate in articles that mention things like the scientific consensus on climate change, creation science, etc.: how do you follow WP:PSCI when a claim merits inclusion in an article, but coverage of the claim doesn't sufficiently contextualize the extent to which it lacks scientific credibility. I'd put a claim like "homosexuality is just a choice" in that category. In those cases, we have to contextualize it. That makes for awkward wording sometimes, and sometimes requires the context to come from sources that are talking about the subject of the claim rather than the specific utterance mentioned in the article, but it's still necessary for PSCI purposes. Not framing them accordingly would be a violation of NPOV, so while I don't think we've done a good job of wording that section, I don't think restoring PSCI compliance should earn a POV tag.
  There are two directions this thread could go: one assumes that these statements need to be contextualized for PSCI/FRINGE reasons. If that's the case, it's really about copyediting. The section is poorly written and repetitive. That was the thrust of my point above. The second direction is the extent to which these specific statements promote a fringe/pseudoscientific belief as directly as "homosexuality is just a choice" (such that they call for that contextualization), and how to handle gray areas.
  I've restored The Hill per what you said above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I agree that saying "homosexuality is a choice" would be considered a fringe POV since it's contrary to the consensus of most scientists. What I'm not confident of is that DeSantis or Baxley are explicitly promoting that fringe theory. DeSantis' comments: is trying to sow doubt in kids about their gender identity and trying to say that they can be whatever they want to be. Baxley: Why is everybody now all about coming out when you're at school? and kids trying on different kinds of things they hear about and different kinds of identities and experimenting. That's what kids do. Taking these comments and saying that they are full endorsements of pseudoscientific stances regarding sexuality/gender identify seems to be a stretch. It's possible for DeSantis' comments to be read as he doesn't want schools trying to tell kids they should change from their natural born sexuality/gender that they can't choose. Baxley's first comment is a question, that could be answered with "because LGBT people are more accepted now in our society." He's not making a declaration of support for anything. As for his second comment, sexual fluidity is a thing. Now I want it to be clear that my reading of these comments was done intentionally to try and see ways that they could possible not reflect the pseudoscientific views that homosexuality is a choice (it certainly reasonable to read these and affirm that they do promote a fringe view). I feel obligated to do this because others here have read them and concluded the opposite. The problem with all of this (my reading and others) is we, as Wikipedia editors, are trying to read off-the-cuff comments by politicians and conclude that they are addressing a certain scientific question and then analyzing and concluding that they are contrary to scientific consensus and then adding a convoluted sentence clause about how wrong those comments truly are. Ultimately, this is not our role to determine if a comment by someone is promoting pseudoscience; that is the role of RS, and they have chosen not to do describe the comments as such. After doing this I feel like I've given some sort of analysis for a class, which means this is original research and shouldn't be expected of myself or others on Wikipedia .

  Now, you seem to suggest that PSCI almost creates a loophole to allow what typically shouldn't occur. I disagree that quoting politicians uplifts a fringe POV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your view is coming from this line from PSCI: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. Ok, firstly I think that this was written within the context of discussing a pseudoscientific view (in-depth) either on a main page about it or on the one about the accepted, non-fringe POV. Such as discussing the conspiracy theories regarding about the JFK assassination at Assassination of John F. Kennedy. The spirit of the policy is to just not give equal validity to the fringe POV when discussing it within prose. The issue is we are not discussing the causes of sexuality on this page in the prose at all. All this is doing is taking some quotes from proponents of this act. We aren't giving them in validity at all. This situation reminds me of something at Donald Trump#Health habits. It says, He considers exercise a waste of energy, because exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy." Obviously, this is a fringe POV but it's not being validated by Wikipedia it's being attributed to Donald Trump. The same idea here applies here.

  I simply reject the notion that synthesis is ok when there is a lack of sourcing with the proper context to say what we as Wikipedia's think should be said. With an absence of RS describing these comments as pseudoscientific, it's just not proper for us to reach the conclusion that they are. I'm sorry for such a long response. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, whether these particular statements should be considered based in a pseudoscientific or fringe claim is very much up for discussion. I reverted because it looked like you treated them all the same without really considering WP:PSCI. Regarding PSCI, I'm going to post a short pointer at WP:FTN to make sure my understanding of how that policy is typically applied is correct. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that WP:OUTRAGE could also apply here... InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Rhododendrites that the extreme false claims by the politicians should not be presented without refutation as that would be an extreme violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"It's a lot more encyclopedic sounding" Why would weasel words and obfuscation be more encyclopedic? Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. This sums up a lot of the content disputes we've been having on this page, most notably the one on saying "parents, families", and "the United States" as opponents when only a few groups within such demographics openly oppose it. See the above thread Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act#Metonyms in the final lead paragraph for more on this specific issue. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that @Dimadick is referring to you claiming that "It's a lot more encyclopedic sounding" in reference to your proposed alteration in the first comment of the thread. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of lead opposition sentence

Hello Wikipedians,

I propose an interim rewording of the lead opposition sentence. Even though I want to be bold, I also don't want my edit to ignite an edit war or a bold, revert, revert, revert cycle.

This is the current sentence:

The opponents of the act are many students, parents, families, teachers, pediatricians, psychologists, lawyers, civil rights and human rights organizations, the United States, the United Nations, and 296 major businesses.

What I propose is a rewording of that sentence to the following sentence:

Many students, parents, families, teachers, pediatricians, psychologists, lawyers, civil rights and human rights organizations, the United States, the United Nations, and 296 major businesses have opposed the act.

I believe that my proposal improves the structure of the sentence and makes it easier to read. The simpler sentences in English usually read as subject(s), then the predicate. My proposed change puts the subjects first, emphasizing their large number. The only downside I can think of, that it puts the part that they oppose the law later, only applies if a reader doesn't finish reading the sentence.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As an interim, sure. I would, however, recommend that instead of many students, parents, families, teachers, etc, we write "Many students, parents, families, and organizations representing etc. This is more accurate and is a good interim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If @PoliticalPoint or anybody else doesn't disapprove of your proposed addition, I will include it in my rewording. AEagleLionThing (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As of this edit, I have implemented my proposed changes. If one reverts, they should also explain their reasons per WP:BRD.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:GOODFAITH edits were inconsistent with the other footnotes, which state the full names of the institutions and organizations, and the sentence structure and wording of the first sentence of the third paragraph, which also refers to "opponents". The established sentence structure and wording of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph is more harmonious with the sentence structure and wording of the first sentence of the third paragraph as both refer to "opponents". Moreover, your change appears to change the sentence to the past tense, when the opposition should be in the present tense, as it is current and ongoing. The established sentence structure and wording accurately conveys that the opposition is current and ongoing. Other concerns regarding a rewording of the sentence were raised in threads above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I should have worded my proposal with "oppose" rather than "have opposed". However, a true past tense statement would be "had opposed" rather than "have opposed", since "have" is the present.

How about my edit on the note about the federal government? The text that the note is attached to specifies that it's the United States, so why does the note need to say that the federal government is of the United States? The United States is already specified directly before the note.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Description of this Act in other articles

There's a conversation taking place at Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 8#Pejorative law nicknames about how this act is described in other articles. Daask (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve abandoned that aforementioned article due to the incredible amount of bias espoused by certain editors holding it hostage. For example, I attempted to add sourced details about the connection and influence between that site and Russian propagandists, and it was removed as "unimportant", which is clearly and quite evidently untrue. "Libs of TikTok's videos have also been promoted by Russian and European disinformation networks, particularly a Kremlin-backed anti-LGBTQ disinformation campaign." Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I did restore that edit; another editor thanked me for it. X Editor, who reverted it, has since retired. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

When I checked the article to see if the details were still there, I got a cite error, saying that the citation text was missing for one of the citations.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah, thanks for noticing. FireFangledFeathers also notified me about that – have fixed it since. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of POV Content

I removed a substantial POV push in the lead, citing various opinion articles to create the notion that the bill "harms children in the classroom" and "erodes the financial resources of public schools" in Wikivoice as if that is a fact. Critics of the bill are already mentioned in the lead, no need to treat their opinions as a fact and write an entire paragraph on it when the criticisms are literally just restating what the bill does and then adding that they think it's extremely harmful. Bill Williams 18:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The criticisms of the bill are already stated in the last paragraph, with zero supporters being mentioned, no need for an entire paragraph citing a dozen different opinion sources which criticize the bill and then framing those as facts regarding its negative aspects. Additionally, no reason to quote two specific organizations in a separate paragraph in the lead criticizing the bill when no other organizations are quoted and the criticisms of the bill are listed in a separate paragraph. Bill Williams 18:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally I removed a few mentions of random scientific research on LGBT issues used to claim that DeSantis and Baxley made false statements when they simply stated unverifiable opinions that some educators are trying to push the idea that you should doubt your gender identity or can be whatever you want to be, he never said he believes you can change your sexuality, while Baxley claimed that some students were trying different things but never claimed that you can change your sexuality. WP:OR means you can't just randomly add scientific sources unrelated to DeSantis and Baxley and claim they made false statements when they simply gave unverifiable opinions on what some teachers or students may be doing. Bill Williams 19:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the article should now have the {{fringe theories}} template added to the top. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to use every single article to discredit every single related belief in every part of the article, as the previous revisions advocated for seemed to do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Due to massive deletions and edit summaries that don’t exactly describe the problem, I’m asking the editor in question to make the changes explicit here on the talk page. There’s been too much funny business on this topic to allow massive deletions like this to slide by without some further explanation beyond a short edit summary. Explain your changes here or make smaller edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem I'm mostly seeing is that too many citations are being repeated and removed (hence the inflated large size of edits), and that due weight/NPOV isn't being followed. I'm all for diversity, equity, and inclusion, but we have to be neutral here. I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't have material in the lead which calls certain theories "bogus", as wrong as they are; rather they should be mentioned as "universally" or "widely condemned" as evil. The article on Adolf Hitler provides a good example to follow; we don't explicitly take a side but explain that he's universally regarded as evil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the talk page. Unfortunately, I am not yet convinced that your concerns are valid; and given the large deletions, the edit summaries are not supporting these changes. If you would like to make smaller proposed changes in small chunks here to show where due weight or NPOV isn’t being followed, please demonstrate it. Simply asserting there’s a problem isn’t working, which is why I’ve restored the material. Again, this page has been subject to lots of funny business, so if you have legitimate concerns, address them one at a time and avoid large blanket deletions. Starting with the POV issue you observe, please show some evidence here that there’s a problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. In the present edition here, you can read this paragraph under "Support":

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, who signed the bill, falsely claimed that education for children about gender identity" is trying to sow doubt in kids about their gender identity" and that such education is "trying to say that they can be whatever they want to be", reflecting the baseless, discredited, and unscientific belief that gender identity is a choice that can be changed, contrary to scientific evidence that gender identity is not a choice and cannot be changed. DeSantis has a rating of 0 from the Human Rights Campaign for his voting record on LGBT rights in the United States from the time when he served as a United States Representative; and has signed a bill to prohibit transgender girls and transgender women from playing sports for girls and women in Florida.

I'm mostly concerned about phrasing and rhetoric like "falsely claimed", and the placement of DeSantis's HRC rating belongs more so on Ron Desantis-related articles such as Political positions of Ron DeSantis. It seems like the page is being used more so to attack opinions rather than list them. In a "support" section, we should list the opinions of supporters. We can list how those positions have been rebutted in the Opposition section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to seek wider community input. This could involve filing an RFC and providing diffs and discussion like this. I’m glad you just started making smaller changes with more accurate edit summaries just now, and I hope you continue to do this in smaller chunks moving forward. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've also seen redundant paragraphs here. In both the Debate section and the Lead, this paragraph (with a little bit of phrasing difference between them is basically duplicated: "Massive walkouts were carried out by students in middle schools and high schools across Florida and throughout the United States in opposition to what they described as the Don't Say Gay bill, with large crowds of middle schoolers and high schoolers chanting "We Say Gay", "Gay Lives Matter", "We Fight For Gay Rights", and "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Homophobes Have Got To Go" in response." I also agree with @AEagleLionThing that there are too many sources, and if possible we should be merging similar lead paragraphs. If we could cut this down to only the best sources for particular claims instead of citing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, the BBC, AND the Washington Post for the exact same claim (just an example), we should, unless the claim being made is that so many newspapers take the same view (in that case, we could do some citation merging). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Falsely claimed" is a tough one. How to handle false claims that a particular person's supporters insist [sometimes with a straight face] be treated with credibility is/was part of the great challenge of covering Trump (and to a less voluminous extent, DeSantis): call it false, you're labeled biased; call it anything less than that, you risk misleading your readers/viewers. I think Wikipedia has typically erred on the side of calling things false when there's a consensus among reliable sources that they're false per WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The various suggestions that LGBTQ+ educators are trying to (or that education about LGBTQ issues functions to) "recruit", "groom", "sow doubt", "brainwash", etc. are all pretty well documented as being, well, bogus (though that's not a word I'd use in wikivoice). How to word that is very much up for debate, but it should be some version that makes clear that it's false, and not just "critics/democrats/activists say it's false". As for the HRC rating, I think what we need are sources (here's one) that do the same contextualization. I dare say a good way to handle that sort of thing would be through a "background" section, which provides information about DeSantis, Florida, similar legislation, etc. Also, yeah, this is absurd: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Some of that glut could be distributed to clauses in that very long sentence, but it's pretty common for people to refbomb controversial articles to solidify WP:WEIGHT. If we agree weight is due, I don't think there's any issue with trimming those down. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct; I think ultimately to avoid any possible conflicts, we should describe the bogusly false claims as "widely-refuted" or "mostly false", akin to phrasing "climate change" as a "scientific consensus". There's also instances (which my efforts to remove were just reverted by @PoliticalPoint, though I'm concerned about WP:DRNC) where certain things were linked too many times. Every time that the GOP is mentioned, we don't have to link it, and at least within the same section, we can refer to "Florida Governor Ron Desantis, A Republican" by just his last name without a wikilink every time the office is mentioned. Same with Dennis Baxley; he's already linked SO MANY times in this article. Maybe just say "GOP state senator Dennis Baxley", and afterwards just use his last name without all those wikilinks. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That paragraph is particularly egregious, although the problems it exhibits aren't limited to a single paragraph. This is, frankly, one of the most biased Wikipedia articles I've ever seen, to the point that I think it hurts the credibility of the entire site (especially given that it gets hundreds of page views a day). It reads more like a poorly written essay than an encyclopedia article, and the "Support" section in particular is written like a hit piece, filled with unrelated information about prominent supporters of the bill that seems to have been selected solely out of a desire to paint them in a bad light. Then there's the overuse of the word "falsely," often in reference to claims that are not demonstrably false (some of them are just opinions), and the cringe-inducing repetition of "baseless, discredited, and unscientific." This essay has no place on Wikipedia, and every day it remains on display damages the site's reputation as a neutral source of information. Oooooooseven (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I severely agree. Luckily, @Bill Williams has removed a lot of the "hit list" elements of the article since. I think we're getting closer to an actual Wikipedia article instead of a encyclopedic-looking list of people to protest against found in an activist-curated library. All we're really missing is context on DeSantis' "war on woke". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoliticalPoint Your partial revert Special:Permalink/1143691319 here contains numerous issues. First of all, it is best to consolidate all opposition into one or two paragraphs in order to put cold hard facts first. The lead also inappropriately uses the United States as a metonym as the ambiguity from foreign readers assuming that the entire United States, even if clarified in a footnote, is too great. If we are to put our readers first, we should be clear and concise.

Implying that the Family Equality Council represents most parents and families is additionally a VERY misleading claim.There is no source which states that most families and parents oppose the act, and the Family Equality Council only represents LGBT+ and allies of LGBT+ families. It is not right nor accurate to say that the Opponents of the Act are this when there are certainly too many outliers to say all; it is MUCH more accurate to say that organizations representing X, X, and X are opposing the bill. Wikipedia is about being as accurate as possible, not accurate enough to be warped. Additionally, the grammatical issues found in the Disney sentence make it a run on; it would be way easier and smoother to just say that Reedy Creek got eliminated because of the feud that escalated from Disney and DeSantis. The sources additionally used are too primary and not reliable enough. If you can suggest a better version of the lead which takes into account these issues on misrepresentation or the ease of confusion, I'm all ears, but the version you reverted to is too inaccurate for Wikipedia, especially when we can be more accurate. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: You are no doubt aware that when changes are contested and reverted, it is incumbent upon the the editor performing the changes to obtain consensus on the talk page for the changes rather than the editor contesting and reverting the changes, as is the expectation and norm on Wikipedia. Your edit is problematic for several reasons. You bolded Florida as part of the name of act, even though it is not part of the official title of the act. You bolded and capitalized each instance of act as part of the alternative names, even though it is not in either case. You removed the direct response of the main nationwide organization for LGBT rights in the United States and the main statewide organization for LGBT rights in Florida to DeSantis signing the bill away from the same paragraph, where it is most relevant. You removed several categories of opponents from the list of opponents. You changed the phrasing for the United States to the US federal government, again, despite an objection previously raised regarding this and the absence of consensus for your change in this regard. You removed a large portion of information about the student walkouts, again, despite an objection previously raised regarding this and the absence of consensus for your change in this regard. You removed vital information from the opening paragraphs from the support section and opposition section. You are no doubt aware that when your changes are contested and reverted, you must obtain consensus on the talk page for your changes before attempting those same changes again, as is the expectation and norm on Wikipedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Bolding text is something that can be easily fixed, and I'm confident that a lot of people would agree that bolding isn't something that a lot of people would competently edit war about. Consider maybe leaving an invisible comment in the text. The family equality council is in NO authority to speak for all families as you imply,. The Federal Government can't accurately represent the United States in domestic issues as both people in the federal government (such as GOP senators and representatives) who support the act, and it is too ambiguous for our readers to distinguish. It's like saying the United States opposes one (and now multiple) of their states. The EFN doesn't help either.

Additonally, not all students oppose the act, and certainly not all parents either. Some parents support it, so why do you put in the lead parents oppose it? It is INACCURATE to say that, ESPECIALLY when using a primary source such as the Family Equality Council. Frankly speaking it's twisting facts to mean something different. The tone in the old version of the lead.

Information on student walkouts is already very much present! We do not need to list every single slogan that there is! Only one needs to be up there. MOS:Lead stipulates that a lead should be a summary of the article, not every single protest slogan, and including every protest slogan up in the lead would produce undue weight. And what paragraphs did I remove from the support and opposition sections? Maybe open up an RFC? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: If you could patiently wait for about two days, a compromise version could be offered that would address the concerns of all editors here, including yourself. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A draft has already been made; see this section further down to continue this discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue with regard to excessive citations has now been resolved in a most satisfactory manner that both preserves the invaluable citations and eliminates the clutter. The issues with regard to excessive links and repeated citations shall be resolved in short order after careful consideration. As for the concerns with regard to WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE is instructive here. Wikipedia should not draw a false balance between experts, pediatricians, psychologists, civil rights and human rights organizations, the United Nations, and so on, on one hand, and certain ignorant (at best) or malicious (at worst) politicians making a litany of false claims that are defamatory and derogatory (at best) or hateful and genocidal (at worst) in order to justify their support for this extreme statute (objectively, not subjectively, as there is no comparable statute anywhere in the democratic world, with similar statutes found only in dictatorships), on the other hand, thereby effectively sanitizing and platforming their lies without accountability and refutation, which has the effective end result of validating their false claims from the perspective of readers. Without exception, all of their lies are refuted by reliable sources and it is most appropriate and encyclopedic to truthfully state that their claims are indeed false for the benefit of readers who should not be misled into believing that there is any validity to their false claims whatsoever. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It would likely be best to state the false nature after; the current phrasing seems more defamatory than anything. The feeling that I'm getting (at least what I'm feeling) of the phrasing also seems to more so be written by activists, and the tone does not seem to be encyclopedic. I would personally prefer phrasing such as "GOP state representative Foo said X. Her/his/their claim has near-universally been debunked, such as by the Reichstag-Climbing Spidermen Cabal, who argued X, and by the Angry Mastodon Association, who said this". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point out that there are many problems with this kind of argument, and you aren’t the first to make it. I’m currently dealing with the repercussions of this kind of thinking in about 100 different articles and trying to figure out how to correct the damage. In brief, your juxtaposition between activists on one side is somewhat misleading. This entire piece of legislation is the work of activists. Also, while the x said y approach does work in many areas, it is also used to whitewash the truth or falsity of claims and to promote alternative facts and narratives, so it has to be employed very carefully. Again, I would suggest small edits and more discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is saying or implying that activists represent everybody, which is what this article seems to do a little bit too much, especially in the lead. The X said Y approach definitely does not work for stuff like the Atlantic Slave Trade, but the problem is that this has become a mainstream political debate. By simply mentioning some things as false without accrediting who believes it, without language like "widely debunked", we risk violating NPOV. Keeping this rhetoric up will make us less neutrally encyclopedic but also give us too liberal of a reputation where it's too easy to imply we are telling people what to think and what not to think, regardless of the actual nature. Until we reach a state where laws and policies like this as more universally condemnable, like at a Dred Scott or Plessy V Ferguson degree, we should stick to the XY approach albeit with "widely refuted" and similar terms. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: This discussion thread has become too unwieldy to respond. Would you be so kind as to start a new one at the bottom of the page focused on specific sets of proposed edits? I think you’ll find that the smaller the set of edits you propose, the more support you are likely to generate. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing, albeit since I'm presently abroad, source page editing is a bit more tedious. Don't expect quick replies from me, but I'll get to it when I have access to a computer. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Could you clarify what you mean by "simply mentioning some things as false without accrediting who believes it"? --PoliticalPoint (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For a statement to be defamatory, it must be false. The statements by the politicians are false so those statements are defamatory, but the statement that those statements are false is accurate and truthful, so it is not defamatory to state that those false claims are indeed false. Again, WP:FALSEBALANCE is instructive here. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Another suggested phrasing could be "Person Z claimed X, which was widely seen as based on pseudoscientific theory. Organization X stated Z's comments did this, and Doctor Y argued Z's comments did that". Given the nature of what organizations have been criticizing the bill, it's much more plausible to include scientists and big NGOs like the UN in the actual refutal, while throwing advocacy organizations into their own paragraph. It would also be better if one paragraph or section is dedicated to comments made by advocacy organizations based on them being less than neutral in nature (though my personal stance is in support of them). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it sounds very much like a recipe for false balance. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That would not be in accordance with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Furthermore, your recent edit was reverted as it removed a citation, removed information about the reversal pertaining to the district and the establishment of state control over it, and reduced the paragraph about the student walkouts to a single sentence, which is not in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, given that the student walkouts are one of the most prominent aspects of the reaction to this legislation. However, given that your desire to condense the rather overly large lead is perfectly reasonable, this has now been done in a manner that is not problematic and is in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Does one medium-sized paragraph in the section of article equate to an entire separate paragraph in the lead? The lead per MOS:LEAD should be ideally four paragraphs. I would also kindly ask you to speak less authoritatively to me, as the tone and word choice in your comments to me seem to subtly enact ownership behavior over other editors. In fact, in a world where ownership behavior was allowed, in theory I could place you below me since I actually was one of the first 50 editors to this article (though thankfully we don't live in a world where people own wikipedia articles). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The pertinence of WP:WEIGHT is this regard is as pertains to the notability of the student walkouts, not the size of the paragraph describing the aforementioned in the article, which can certainly be expanded if necessary. The student walkouts are one of the most prominent aspects of the reaction to this legislation, garnering significant news coverage. As for your concern with regard to "tone and word choice", you are most certainly misinterpreting, given that there has been a most cordial discussion and exchange of ideas combined with the addressing of most of your concerns in an amicable and collaborative manner. With regard to your recent edit, most of it is agreeable, however, it is disagreeable to change the phrasing from the United States to the federal government as that is already mentioned in the note next to it and is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. 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. Furthermore, the terms "precipitating" and "precipitated" better convey that each action swiftly led to the next. Finally, further addressing your desire to condense the lead, it has now been condensed further. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The US over "the federal government" not an appropriate metonym at all, as it is more ambiguous. It is bogus to imply, let alone claim, that the entire US is against the law, and stating that the federal government is opposed to the law is much better. We should place our readers first, and the totum pro party is too ambiguous given that we're dealing with US state laws. When we're writing about foreign countries, then yes, it's appropriate, but these are US domestic affairs. We rarely see phrasing akin to "the United States opposes the Florida law", but if you are insistent on metonymy, consider saying "Washington" instead as that's a much more acceptable metonym for the federal government. And again, please do adjust your tone to be less authoritative over me, as I am personally starting to fear slight trickles of WP:OWN are taking place in your comments. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the articles moon landing conspiracy theories and modern flat Earth beliefs, both of which are linked to in WP:FALSEBALANCE, the falsity of the claims are expressed after their descriptions. I think that the article on moon landing hoax beliefs can be a guide, even though the rebuttals could be too detailed in this context. On each major claim, detailed rebuttals are given after them.

However, if I take the subject of this article into account, I'm not sure what would be the best way to move forward.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A more pertinent example and one that covers a contemporary topic is the Russo-Ukrainian War article where the Russian accusations and demands section states that "Putin falsely claimed that Ukrainian society and government were dominated by neo-Nazism". --PoliticalPoint (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In the same section, Russian accusations and demands, an example of falsity being expressed after the claim is On 9 December 2021 Putin said that "Russophobia is a first step towards genocide". Putin's claims were dismissed by the international community, and Russian claims of genocide were rejected as baseless. Some statements in this article involve quotes, such as the one from DeSantis: [Education about gender identity] is trying to sow doubt in kids about their gender identity. Putin's quote also involves the international community, much like the UN's opposition of the law.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with EagleLionThing here; this format is much more acceptable. The writing style is more akin to an opinionated encyclopedia than a neutral encyclopedia, and the methods as described by EagleLion are the best way to deal with false claims, and particularly politically contentious false claims. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we simply dealing with politically contentious claims in this article? Or are we dealing with fringe claims made by a politically active religious interest group about the role and function of secular government? We need to be careful not to cross lanes here by legitimatizing fringe theories as valid. In related news, the debate in the Missouri State House that occurred yesterday about this subject (whose video was released today and went viral), shows that the true proponents of this and related legislation use their Bible as justification for it. Given that modern legislation is supposed to be based on evidence, not on what people think the Bible says, we need to be very careful presenting this as "politically contentious". This would be like citing non-climate scientists as legitimate opposition to anthropogenic climate change. More relevantly, the impetus for this bill comes primarily from three sources, religious groups, right wing media sources, and false claims about gender affirming medical care. Those things need to be made explicit, no matter how you do it. And to refresh everyone’s memory, Dennis Baxley originally introduced this bill. He 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 uses the bill mill model of the Koch-connected American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push Christian nationalism in the US. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This has put Wikipedia in a tough position as we shouldn't be sacrificing neutrality in anything except for clear factual evidence of 1+1≠393, and frankly, advocacy organizations as cited here are non neutral sources. My personal opinion is that the claims are bogus, but on Wikipedia, we are neutral. That being said, we can still condemn the practice with neutral terminology through inclusion and exclusion, and I think this article would be a lot less scrutinized from "the neutrality police" if we go ahead and present stuff as "state the claim, then proceed to show evidence of it being debunked and state it as widely debunked". Even if the structure is to remain as is with the plain "this is false", the tone should at least be fixed. We're not supposed to be telling people what to think, and the tone of writing in the article (as well as some comments in this talk page which I've already mentioned) is a bit on the authoritarian side. I've tried to make it less tonally of an accusation festival here, but that doesn't seem to work as practically all of my edits here as of recent have been in one way or another reverted. What I ultimately fear is that ownership behavior will become more widespread here; not too long ago was I involved in ownership behavior and discussion bludgeoning on Years articles (which required an ANI and one editor getting TBANned to partially resolve); I don't want to see the same stuff here. Perhaps I'm fearmongering, but because of how unproductive years discussions were, it's something I've been a bit afraid of to say the least especially given how mentally draining it was for me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe that the claims are false as well. However, I am not making fringe theories valid. WP:FRINGE#Identifying fringe theories states that: When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. The format claim, then falsity does not present the fringe view at the same level as the consensus, since the falsity is expressed immediately and explicitly after the claim.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the POV dispute template

The user @Iamreallygoodatcheckers's edit, which added the POV disputed template was reverted by @PoliticalPoint's edit.

The removal of the POV dispute template has happened to @InvadingInvader's template before. Now it has happened to Iamreallygoodatcheckers's template. According to Template:POV#When to remove, there are three conditions for the template to be removed. Any one can be met for its removal.

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

None of these conditions are or were met. As PoliticalPoint stated, there is no consensus regarding the dispute. No to the first. It is clear what the neutrality issue is, as we have multiple very long talk sections dedicated to this issue. No to the second. Because of the activity on these talk sections, the third condition is also not met.

The POV dispute template only says that neutrality is disputed. Because the dispute is ongoing, the template should not be removed.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Added tag back in per above. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This would constitute Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe also time to raise this article on the NPOV noticeboard?? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think so, this conversation has gone on for far too long. Raising the issue would get more editors in, and maybe we could reach a consensus faster with them.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, in my opinion. PoliticalPoint may have just copied and pasted from a past version.

AEagleLionThing (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That's probably why and how she/he/they is reverting some well intentioned edits like removing over linking as well…and not doing as many partial reverts. Would be helpful for us if all the uncontroversial edits weren't reverted as well and we didn't have to worry about restoring it ourselves. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the article is substantially less POV than it was a few days ago, since there aren't excessive mentions/citations of various critics of the bill while (still today) there are zero supporters mentioned in the lead besides Republicans in the legislature. Bill Williams 23:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed a massive amount of irrelevant information or original research that was completely unrelated to the support for the bill, only other policies in other states or the opinions of those people on other issues, etc. The support section still needs to include organizations lead by parents for example that support the bill, considering it currently is limited to politicians only, as if those are the only people in the state who supported the bill. Bill Williams 23:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we're getting close. For me, I still believe that the gallery of legislators and government officials who passed the bill in the Legislative History section still kind of demonstrates a but of a potential issue for neutrality. It makes the article a bit less of "this is what happened" and more so "these are the guys you have to protest against". Its removal oil best, and as previously raised with @AEagleLionThing, if we can find an image of DeSantis signing the bill which conforms to WP policies, we should use that instead of the gallery. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah; that gallery isn't encyclopedic, and pretty out of sync with how images are generally used here. To me, it evokes a middle school civics primer, and I'm sure that wasn't the intended goal. DFlhb (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any other article even has something like this. Correct me if I'm wrong though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve removed the gallery. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing I believe is necessary is to include a Background section, though I'm not entirely sure on how to write it. Since this act is core to Ron Desantis' "war on woke", we should cover that. Maybe even his speculated 2024 presidential run? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits (2)

Recent edits to the article substantially altered the article against the consensus of of multiple discussions on the article talk page or in the absence of consensus for the massive alterations in violation of WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. The concerns of multiple editors, including @Rhododendrites, @Viriditas, @Dimadick, @Dronebogus, @Cadenrock1, @Brian Kendig, @Sideswipe9th, @Johnnyg150, @Rab V, and @Guycn2, among other editors, raised throughout multiple discussions on the article talk page, have been completely ignored in a blitzkrieg of edits that removed an enormous amount of content supported with citations of reliable sources in an attempt to impose a version that is an extreme and severe violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:WEIGHT, among other Wikipedia policies. The article has now been restored to the established version prior to the now contested and disputed alterations that caused the article to be in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:WEIGHT, among other Wikipedia policies, where it should remain without any substantial alterations until and unless there is consensus for the massive alterations per WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to do just that. Recent massive edits clearly lacked consensus, they arbitrarily and selectively removed content backed by reliable sources, and made the article look like a propaganda page in support of the Act. Substantial changes like these must not be made without broad & clear consensus. Guycn2 (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What an absurd accusation that multiple editors are pushing "propaganda." We added literally nothing in support of the bill, only removing UNDUE, OR, or NPOV content strewn throughout the article. The entire lead was filled with multiple paragraphs of irrelevant criticism or putting opinions in wikivoice as a fact, while the support section had a criticism for literally every single politician who supported the bill, with the criticisms being OR that weren't actually mentioned in the sources or the criticisms being about random other policies that these politicians supported that are completely irrelevant to THIS bill in particular. This article was propaganda against the bill and painting it as anything in support of the bill is completely disingenuous. How many groups supporting the bill are even mentioned in the lead? Zero. Bill Williams 21:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to note that six separate editors were involved in the discussion that resulted in the removal of repetitive, unnecessary content throughout the article. To quote one massive block of text that was in the lead in addition to two other paragraphs of criticism:

"It has been described as the Don't Say Gay act or as the Don't Say Gay or Trans act by its opponents who oppose the act because it prohibits education about the LGBT community, LGBT history, LGBT rights, and same-sex marriage in early grades or in any manner deemed to be against state standards in all grades; harms children in the classroom; censors classroom discussion about LGBT families by the children of LGBT parents; censors classroom instruction about LGBT families by teachers; forces public schools to out LGBT children against their will to parents who are not accepting of their sexual orientation or gender identity; and erodes the financial resources of public schools by means of frivolous lawsuits by aggrieved parents."

If you seriously think it is NPOV to state in Wikivoice as a fact these highly opinionated statements, then I suggest you take a closer look at what a neutral writing would be. Bill Williams 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, I withdraw my comment about there being no POV issues in this article; this is a pretty clear example of it. (especially in the lead!) DFlhb (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph that I was quoting but PoliticalPoint re-added it, even though the massive bottom paragraph of the lead lists out numerous critics of the bill (and zero supporters), and 90% of the first paragraph in the lead lists out what the bill does, therefore there is zero need for an extra criticism paragraph in the lead that is re-stating what other paragraphs state in a highly opinionated fashion. Bill Williams 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If I’m correct it would seem that the user responsible is User:Bill Williams, a user with a long history of politically charged disruption (his talk page/archives feature accusations towards other editors of supporting terrorism and comparisons of Antifa to Ted Bundy). Is an ANI request for a block in order? Dronebogus (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve opened an ANI thread. This user’s behavior is reckless and alarming enough that I’m concerned they’re an immediate threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ps link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Bill Williams Dronebogus (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to the article, came here from WP:ANI. When restoring an earlier version, it would make things easier to navigate if the message were to say which version you were restoring to. Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoliticalPoint Your rollback has removed the POV banner, which we've previously warned you not to do, and removed several changes which had an apparent consensus, such as the inclusion of Baxley and Harding in the lead, repeated citations removal, and the reduction of metonymy. All of which has since been reverted to the last version before your mass rollback. This additionally includes the Provisions section, which is well sourced and contains what's actually in the article. Not separating provisions from legislative history is a Due Weight issue, as while opposition is significant, it should not invade other paragraphs. Several editors have sided against you in the above discussions when it comes to the first and last examples specifically, so it's not a good idea. I would also encourage you to outline what parts of what policies are fulfilled by which violations. Please outline exactly how the removal of the words "false" violate all those policies. Also consider responding to all the edit summaries and tag all the editors who have removed such content, rather than just your supporters, in order to avoid a lopsided and disingenuous discussion and potential canvassing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep reverting others' edits by justifying with STATUSQUO, if these contested materials are ones you've added just weeks ago. The status quo version is the one before disputed edits, not after.

Side note: this article has a POV tag, but its POV is just about the one thing this article gets right. Before this revert, it had deep SYNTH and sourcing issues, among other things. DFlhb (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Further reviewing the discussion, there does seem to be slightly more editors who are in favor of removing the massive elaborations than those who prefer to keep them stayed. I advise you again to outline how each removal violates each part of each policy. Don't just say "Removing this violates WP:POLICY"; say "Removing this violates WP:POLICY because it does X, contrary to WP:POLICY, which says Y". That's a well-formed and convincing argument. Moreover, talk about not just how a move can (or can't) work, but how and why such move is best (or not best) for an article. As an example, reasoning per the totum pro parte debate showed why it can work, but stayed silent on why including such metonymy is best for the article.

Most editors who have removed such content (myself included) outline that we are placing too much weight on the opposition, more than is necessary. We additionally raise concerns that the totum pro parte is too ambiguous and potentially disingenuous, stating that a whole group of people oppose the bill when more than an insignificant minority don't align with the group's opinion. Speaking of opinion, we're concerned that your phrasing choices are too biased in favor of certain agendas, and more neutral phrasing can be used. Additionally, the removal of content Bill Williams and I support is over-elaboration, and people who wish to read more about certain figures' political views can click the wikilink and read more. The inclusion of such information here is potentially biased and serves to discredit the figure in a place where they shouldn't be discredited on Wikipedia. It's a bit like "he said this, and this is wrong". We're not supposed to tell people how to think.

I would further suggest that you also work on your tone, as it seems to be very authoritative. Rather than "I believe" type of statements, your phrasing choice seems to evoke (at least to me) that you own the article and you are the authority on which everything has to go through. Think of statements such as "Your edit was reverted" being replaced by "I reverted your edits". Moreover, your word choice seems to paint a picture of your opponents being homophobes; calling our removals a "blitzkrieg" seems to be further disingenuous to your intentions. These seem to reflect (at least to me) a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, something, which the Wikipedia community shows a great dislike for and something that frequently leads to sanctions and blocks. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• These are absolutely nonsensical accusations, and I have no idea why you are targeting me when I have never even interacted with you before. Instead of pointing out the issue you had, you immediately jumped straight to telling administrators to block me instead of even trying to gain consensus for whatever changes you want on the talk page. The content that I removed was either completely UNDUE or OR, for example repeated mentions of pseudoscience relating to LGBT issues that had nothing to do with the articles on the people who were being mentioned, or excessive babble about how X or Y supports policies A or B in various other states, completely irrelevant to this article about a specific bill in a specific state. The criticism in the lead was literally in three separate sections, it was not whatsoever NPOV and even now there is still no specific support mentioned in the lead from any groups, only the critics, so how can you possibly think I have made this article more POV than it already was? Bill Williams 21:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think at this point, re-adding the material without proper discussion about the material itself and/or attacking editors by using Nazi-esque phrasing like "blitzkrieg of edits" is just disruptive editing to make a point. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I would also like to bring up that over half of the editors you mentioned having concerns about neutrality have never in a talk page discussion in the archives, and some never even participating at all. This really seems like WP:Canvassing. You seem to be potentially pushing for the implementation of a false consensus. That's just wrong, man. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not going to do it myself to avoid another faux pas, but I suggested starting a thread about one PoliticalPoint on ANI over creating this mess over what seems like a pretty mundane content dispute between the aforementioned individual and Bill Williams Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Which? Clicking contribs for each person shows recent contributions to this page. Not saying I would've pinged them, but if you're going to allege canvassing it's better to be specific. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to their lack of participation on talk page discussions. If you're going to say a consensus exists, back it up. Burden of proof is on the claimer, and I'm saying that because about half of them have never even participated on this talk page, it seems awfully strange to claim that there is a solid consensus, rather than just an undiscussed one or a default consensus by lack of participation. Especially "raised through multiple discussions"…which discussions? Can't find any where about half of them even participated. That's what I'm particularly pointing at when I say this seems like canvassing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

about half of them have never even participated on this talk page you've said this twice. They've literally all participated on this talk page. Maybe take a look at the page history? Again, whether they should be pinged is another question, but this idea that PP is pinging people who have never commented here is untrue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at history...I checked again and yes you're right they seem to have participated (sorry). Might have been my lack of access of Command F. However, I would dispute that all of who PP pinged actively participated in forming the consensus. Haven't seen a "consensus" to include such content here our that they have active or strong concerns about this information being removed InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

Currently the aftermath description only talks about people filing lawsuits against the bill itself. Are there any examples of people using the bill to sue schools or teachers to remove books and/or prevent classroom instructions? It seems there are a lot of media articles about these consequences of the bill but the article has very little to say about it; it seems like this needs to be covered here. --hroest 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a good point, I believe there is definitely content out there which could be added regarding lawsuits filed by parents, plenty of them complain about the most insignificant things in schools so numerous lawsuits existing would not be surprising. Bill Williams 13:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Critics and "don't say gay"

I was surprised by this revert[1] for a lot of reasons. First of all, my edit didn't add critics calling the bill "don't say gay". That was already in the article, just in the passive voice. Secondly, the two sources cited are clearly critics. Thirdly, I did a quick check of sources, and the first two I came across clearly say that critics call it the "don't say gay" act. npr ap. So I think the edit should be restored, and the opening sentence should return to the state here [2] Adoring nanny (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I agree. I would ask @Sideswipe9th to provide proof that not only critics or opponents call the bill the Don't Say Gay bill outside of an editorial setting like the NPR and AP. I have run across sources which support or are neutral towards the bill placing "Don't Say Gay" in quotes since the nickname is so common (see National Review, as well as NPR+AP as cited by Adoring nanny), but I don't think you're going to see too many genuine supporters directly implying they support the name of the bill. The nickname was created and primarily used by the opposition to the bill. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledging I've seen this, but won't be able to respond for another few hours. That said, I'm not sure I agree with the precondition that sources that support the broader use of the nickname than just critics need to be outside of an editorial setting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, back now. So Rhododendrites and Firefangledfeathers have done a lot of what I would have done. A lot of the sources I've read on the act have simply referred to it as the "Don't Say Gay" act or bill, without restricting it to "by critics". There's some more sources I could provide if we really need it, but I think the array already given is of sufficient breadth already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, "by critics" was added as part of Bill Williams' overhaul a few days ago [3]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Some links, all of which use some formulation like "also known as" without restricting the name to "by critics": Axios, AACAP, Tampa Bay Times, NPR, lots of local news like WESH, ADL, USA Today, Mother Jones, Tallahassee Democrat, Journal of School Leadership, The Economist, American Psychological Association, CBS News, Newsweek (another), CNBC, Vogue, People, The Guardian... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd support going back to the pre-BW version ("commonly known as the Don't Say Gay act or the Don't Say Gay or Trans act"). There are many sources that exclusively use "Don't Say Gay" and don't even mention the bill number or act's official name (see Fortune/AP, The Guardian, USA Today). Some sources are explicit about it being a common name, like Education Week, Time, Voice of America, CNN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to put "Don't Say Gay or trans" in an EFN due to how "nichely" of a nickname it is used compared to "Don't Say Gay", but I think that @Rhododendrites makes a good point. Though I would prefer to avoid the use of politically biased newspapers outside of the Support and Opposition sections (Mother Jones particularly is notable for having a left-leaning bias), based on what Rhodendentries is saying, I don't think it will harm the article or its neutrality to any notable extent. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second alt name in an efn. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Second alt name in an EFN seems ideal, it's much more of a niche nickname and one I don't recall seeing used much. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to respond to the above concerns about Mother Jones. All sources have some kind of bias, so by itself, that’s not how we pick and choose sources. We evaluate instead for reliability, and Wikipedia has determined by "consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article."[4] With that said, it should also be noted that this description and designation of Mother Jones as a biased source, while accurate in many respects, is a form of house bias and discrimination by the Wikipedia community, since we don’t also designate and describe large corporate sources (such as ABC News) as "biased" because they promote a hyper-capitalist, free market fundamentalist POV as the default position, and that’s not, for some strange reason that nobody can explain, also considered biased by Wikipedia, but an acceptable default position that is considered unbiased. There’s clearly a problem, therefore, with isolating Mother Jones when seen in comparison to the systemic bias we accept as the default unbiased position. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Mother Jones to me is just the most glaring example. My position is that we should use these sources when describing support and opposition, though when describing factual matters, such as the background, etymology, and legislative history, use the least biased available source. The AP, Reuters, NPR, etc. I would not say that ABC News, despite its Disney owner, is an extremely biased source to the same degree as Mother Jones, Newsmax, etc. I'm primarily concerned about the political bias, and the steering towards one end of the political spectrum when dealing with sources that have a free market bias is not strong, as with quite a few social issues. This comes in contrast to free-market sources whose bias is a part of their identity, or independently-published articles by advocacy groups. Just because large corporate sources have a bias for free-market fundamentalism doesn't mean that they have a strongly-phrase opinion on every issue; for example, Disney and Viacom don't really have strong positions in the gun-control debate since it really doesn't affect either's business aside from just more stories. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We will agree to disagree on the nature of systemic bias. I think all sources are biased. The real question for you is how does the bias of Mother Jones appear in this instance, when you compare it to the others on the same topic? Without even bothering to look, I will hazard a guess that Mother Jones represents the mainstream POV, and the corporate sources elevate the minority POV to a position of prominence and high regard. That’s what ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and all the rest always do. Corporate sources present false balance and give voice to extreme viewpoints out of proportion to their representation. It’s ironic, therefore, that Mother Jones is being singled out when in fact it is not doing this. That’s the problem in a nutshell, and it really does feel to me that the reality based community is disappearing and being replaced with an alternate reality created by conservatives (and corporate media). Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to your personal opinion about Mother Jones versus NPR and the AP. Personally, I think NPR and the AP indulge leftist conspiracy theories like the idea that Hunter Biden's laptop is not Hunter Biden's laptop[5]. But neither your opinion nor mine matters here. What matters is what Wikipedia considers to be the the most-mainstream sources. And that's sources like NPR and AP, not sources like Mother Jones. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, speaking of quality sources: NYT1 NYT2 Adoring nanny (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing wrong with the Mother Jones content linked above. You can't point to anything wrong with it, so what do you do? You change the subject to an alternate reality created by right wing Republicans, the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, a conspiracy theory filed away with the likes of other artificially manufactured controversies like Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and Ashley Biden’s diary. Meanwhile, Mother Jones remains a viable reliable source for use on Wikipedia by consensus and nothing was shown to be remotely wrong with the above source. Try another distraction, because that one isn’t working, and you’re just encouraging me to add every Mother Jones source I can find to this article. As for your "quality source", media critics have spent decades showing how the NYT is just as biased as Mother Jones, but they are generally ignored because the NYT pretends to have the imprimatur of the US government, so it keeps a lid on how far and how deep a story will actually be allowed to go. This was revealed in the early 1990s by Lies of our Times and consequently continued by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and other groups until today. Here’s my favorite example of NYT bias, I hope it’s yours too. I think it’s fair to say that Mother Jones has never published anything so egregious or erroneous. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

""the NYT is just as biased as Mother Jones " Huh? I was under the impression that The New York Times is a right-wing propaganda outlet. Its list of controversies in the main article include the newspaper's false allegations on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, its pro-Israeli bias, its anti-trangender campaigning, and its spreading of misinformation concerning transgender issues. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry that’s the impression you get, but I haven’t addressed such an equivalence. To reiterate, all sources are biased. The argument up above (and implicitly by the entry in the perennial sources link) is that Mother Jones is more biased than the NYT. You and I have both shown that it is not. Unfortunately, our opinion is very much in the minority, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. My point is that Wikipedia continues to promote this bias in their own perennial source listing. For the sake of the community, I think it is best to end this discussion here and get back on topic, but I did want to raise the question, and I’m glad you chimed in. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This frame problem is a common one on WP. Fortunately, this instance seems easily resolved with "also known as". The current wording is "commonly known as", which is different and has unique issues. First is timeliness. It might not be common in the near future. These things can flip fast. Second is there's a slight pov in that it implies it's the name you should use for convenience. On the contrary, in this case, it's very largely only used by critics. So I do support "critically referred to as" in WP (or similar), but a more editorial take (that is to say, more accurate, but not suitable for WP unfortunately) would be "inaccurately dubbed DSG by critics". 207.236.147.164 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I clarified in the lead "by critics" is because only critics use the term to refer to the bill (if you seriously think NBC or Mother Jones etc. articles aren't also written by critics that's pretty funny), no supporters ever call it that, but it's fine without the word "critics" being in the lead. I think adding the word "trans" is also misleading because it is rarely referred to as the "Don't Say Gay or Trans" Bill or Act, so claiming it is "commonly" referred to as that is inaccurate. Bill Williams 13:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I question including as "commonly" used is the term "Don't Say Gay Act" instead of "Don't Say Gay Bill," in the sources linked by Rhododendrites, but I do see the term "law" often used because it is no longer a bill. I think that should be in the lead instead of "act." Bill Williams 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I feel that I must mention that you are also misunderstanding how we evaluate and use reliable sources. This idea that you are espousing, that a source can’t be critical of an idea, is common to right-wing subcultures and communities, but it isn’t accepted by anyone outside those spheres of influence. I find it particularly common as a POV on economics and engineering forums that I participate in. These people have an antiquated and almost baroque sense of how journalism and investigative reporting should work, and believe that journalists should act as stenographers of the ruling class without any deviation from the official talking points by the establishment, and should not ask any questions that might challenge the party line. What is interesting and ironic about this perspective, as historian Timothy Snyder is so fond of pointing out, is that even though it is supported by American conservatives, it’s an opinion that comes from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes such as the former communist country of the USSR. Snyder has also described Florida under DeSantis as trending in the direction of policies like the USSR for this and other reasons (see ""DeSantis Policies in Florida Reminiscent of Communism, Historian Says"). While this might seem like an outrageous and unfair characterization to those not familiar with the background and history, there’s actually a lot of evidence supporting the rise in authoritarian thinking and attitudes on the right. That so-called news sources like Fox decided very early on to self-describe their reportage as "fair and balanced" is very telling. There is no reliable expert or authority on journalism who will give credence to the idea that Fox is fair and balanced, yet this is the idea that conservatives are getting at when they decry adversarial journalism as critical and biased against them. As that linked article shows, adversarial journalism is now, in the modern era, a minority practice, with most news outlets trying to mimic Fox’s fair and balanced perspective, which is anything but. This goes a long way towards explaining why so many people here see any source that is remotely critical and analytical as "biased" and unusable. These ideas are very often at odds with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and best practices on using sources. I would really recommend rereading our guidelines and policies on source use and verification. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No clue why you're writing a massive block of text about random nonsense regarding conservatives and right-wing subcultures, I'm not right wing and never said we need Fox News as a source (no reasonable person thinks they're nonpartisan), but I'll respond to your points. Zero supporters of the bill have referred to it as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, and a source can decline from criticizing something, but every source that refers to the bill as "Don't Say Gay" without stating that critics call it that, and instead the source calls the bill "Don't Say Gay" without even giving the actual name, while also pushing various criticisms of the bill and barely quoting any supporters, is clearly not a "fair and balanced" view. An article that quotes what critics claim as facts without stating it is disputed claim (e.g. flat out stating the bill will harm LGBTQ+ children, like the lead of this Wikipedia article used to state as a fact without even qualifying it as a claim by critics) while barely mentioning anything supporters of a bill state is not a "fair and balanced" view, especially since the bill has divided public support, so I don't know what you think is neutral. "Adversarial journalism is now, in the modern era, a minority practice" is completely false, and it's hilarious you would claim such a thing. To give an example of an actually reputable source, New York Times has reported a front-page story on Trump for the past six years straight on a daily basis until he was no longer president, but at least once per week during Biden's presidency there was a front-page story on Trump, with almost zero positive things to say about him. A person who hasn't been president for two years has gotten almost daily coverage on the front-page of NYT, meanwhile the incumbent president is almost never a top story in the New York Times, and searching through the archive shows a near complete lack of coverage on Biden. When Trump was president, every single day nearly 5 of their top 10 stories were on Trump, again zero positive things to say. When the NYT takes the rare occasion to write a front-page story on Biden, it's sometimes mixed between positive and negative aspects, but rarely takes a completely negative standpoint. [6] Go through past dates and check any random day during Biden's presidency, chances are one of their front-page is on Trump and nothing is to be seen about Biden. If you seriously think reporting on a past president in a negative manner on nearly a daily basis while never reporting on the incumbent president isn't politically biased, I guess you think our incumbent president does nothing on a daily basis, while Trump magically engaged in 100x as many daily activities. I despise Trump, but it doesn't take long to see what you call "adversarial journalism" and it's hilarious you claim it no longer exists. NYT is actually reliable and just has some left-wing bias in what it chooses to report on and what criticisms it chooses to cite, meanwhile some joke of a source like Mother Jones is purely adversarial journalism when reporting on Republicans or right-wing people/ideas, you can see that in both the title and entire article of anything written by them. My point is that this article doesn't need to quote Fox News and spout support for the bill, but quoting every statement of critics of the bill as facts is disingenuous, and that is why I removed certain paragraphs from this article, because they were redundant of the criticisms already mentioned but then stated them in a POV way. Bill Williams 05:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason that Wikipedia overwhelmingly agrees that Mother Jones is extremely biased (i.e. targeting adversaries which you claimed is rare today), is just a quick look of their front page headlines [7] shows the only articles on Republicans are overwhelmingly negative, while those on Democrats are positive, literally calling an action by Biden "Good" at the very top. If you seriously think this is a neutral view on American politics, then I understand why you think it is okay to have this article state criticisms as facts without even qualifying them as criticisms. The article mentions various criticisms of the bill, the only thing I removed was duplicate restatements of criticisms but claiming they were facts in Wikivoice, as I already quoted in the above discussion, with the article previously stating that the act "harms children in the classroom" among other things as if that's a factual statement. There is nothing wrong with listing out criticisms, but putting them into Wikivoice as a fact without any qualification is not appropriate. Bill Williams 05:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM issues introduced 2 April

Earlier today Bill Williams added multiple instances of claims into the article. I reverted it citing MOS:CLAIM, as it quite obviously calls the credibility of their respective statements into question. Bill has since restored it a second time. Bill per WP:BRD will you please self-revert, and then per WP:ONUS seek a consensus for the content you have just added to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Every statement by supporters of the bill begins with how they "claim" that it does something, because nothing is a definitive fact to be stated in Wikivoice. The same thing applies to opponents of the bill, they claim that it harms LGBT children but that is not a definitive fact for us to state in Wikivoice in the article. MOS:CLAIM says you can use other synonyms instead of repeating the word claim, but it is completely absurd to just state in Wikivoice that the bill "harms" anyone without using a qualifying word. Bill Williams 18:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, will you please self-revert, and then per WP:ONUS seek a consensus for the change you wish to make to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sure I can do that, but I would ask for a response to why every single supporter's claim is qualified as a "claim" while we can somehow state in Wikivoice that what opponents claim is a fact that doesn't need to be qualified? Bill Williams 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted but I still insist that the wording be changed because it is a contentious claim that the bill will harm LGBT children, especially considering the vast majority of schools in Florida had no current lessons on gender identity or sexual orientation, so claiming that a bill will be harmful by banning lessons on something not currently taught is certainly not a definitive fact that is agreed upon by all reliable sources. Bill Williams 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Outside of the references, the word claim or claimed is used 9 times in the article. Taking them in order:

• "DeSantis claimed that education for children about gender identity 'is trying to sow doubt'" - This one is actually a claim. There is no evidence that age appropriate education about gender identity has any impact upon "sowing doubt" of a child's gender identity.
• "Baxley...claimed that there are 'kids trying on different kinds of things...'" - This one could probably be changed to a neutral variant of said.
• "Garcia claimed that 'gay is not a permanent thing, LGBT is not a permanent thing'" and "Garcia later apologized for her claim." - This one is definitely a claim. Non-heterosexual sexualities exist, and despite attempts are known to be persistent.
• "Pushaw claimed that 'The bill that liberals...' and claimed that 'If you're against'" - These two are definitely claims. There is no evidence that LGBT people and their supporters engage in child grooming at rates higher than non-LGBT people.
• "joined senator Marco Rubio in claiming that the act helped to keep classes age appropriate" - This is again a claim. Research shows that most kids have a strong sense of their gender identity around age 3, and there are age appropriate materials to help them understand this and how different kids have differing gender identities from around that age.
• "This move was scrutinized by former Vice President Mike Pence, who claimed DeSantis was going too far" - This particular statement is in relation to the former Reedy Creek Improvement District takeover. This should be changed to a neutral variant of said.
• "filed suit against four Florida school districts' boards...,claiming the law's 'vigilante enforcement mechanism,'" - This should be changed to a neutral and contextually appropriate variant of said.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As a general matter, we shouldn't use "claim", except when we are doing a direct quote. After leaving this comment, I'll implement that. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Just fixed it. It's very simple. Even if someone says that there is a colony of talking yellow moths on Jupiter, you still don't use "claim." Adoring nanny (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Would agree that the article looks more in compliance now. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I never meant that the word "claimed" had to be used, synonyms like "said" or "stated" are perfectly fine, but the article had previously used Wikivoice to state that "the law harms LGBT children" or other things that are opinions of individuals and not facts to be stated in Wikivoice. Bill Williams 12:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I support Adoring nanny's edit, but those are really bland statements. It reads boring. But he didn't address the sentence that is the subject of this discussion. It still states "harm" as a fact.

This isn't a style issue. If Sideswipe9th wants it to remain this way, he needs to provide a MEDRS that backs it up. Consensus is made on the quality of the arguments, and Sideswipe9th's application of the MOS is simply mistaken. If he didn't like "claim" he should have edited an alternative. Put your edit though as "said", then Sideswipe9th can provide the MEDRS of he wants it removed.

I would try some improvements, but it's locked. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to cite the manual of style when it is a verification issue. If you want it to say "it harms children" without qualifying that with "claims" or something else, then onus is on you to produce the RS saying it is fact. Being what this is, it would need to be MEDRS, a much higher standard. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely and will see if anything else needs correction on the page. Bill Williams 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)