Talk:Policy 713

Expanded content

I’ll use this to link parts that could potentially be expanded upon.

• In the Kelly Lamrock document, he suggests the review to be suspended, in his own words, “until they have clear terms of reference. Those terms of reference should put in writing the encouraging words that the Minister has offered in interviews - that the review is not going to make human rights a political debating point and throw vulnerable kids into the culture wars of adults.” - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60340d12be1db058065cdc10/t/646393b3a39d3e26e3d9f8a0/1684247476892/Policy+713+-+Findings+and+Recommendations.pdf
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-lgbtq-policy-broken-lamrock-1.6844945
• https://tj.news/telegraph-journal/102111409?ref=tw

B3251 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing notes

Hi there, I copy edited this article as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. Pinging B3251, who made the request. I wrote the following notes during my editing process; they aren't in any particular order, and—of course—they're just my opinion. Apologies for any (ironic) illegibility herewithin.

• Policy 713 also instructed that the establishment of a Gender-Sexuality Alliance club would be supported by school personnel and principals, with parental consent not being a requirement to join.
  • secondary source preferred
• More secondary sources needed in general. Especially in discussion of revised version.
• is there a shorter (and sourceable) name for Department of Education and Early Childhood Development?
  • I've seen "Department of Education" used a few times; maybe that can go in instead.
• More detail needed in Original version section. Why was the bill first enacted? What was the surrounding context? What were the responses at the time? What, if any, were the effects of the initial bill? Was criticism mounting before 2023?
  • If this section gets long enough and you have the requisite sourcing, you could even extend to a "Background" section which would incorporate things like Parental rights movement and LGBT rights in Canada
• Especially if this is your first good article nomination, I recommend working on any edits that arise from my comments then seeking a peer review before doing a GA nom.
• Watch out for WP:NPOV wording, specifically MOS:WTW (within that, MOS:EDITORIAL, MOS:SAID) — this is a major issue.
• If possible, non-Telegraph-Journal refs would be nice. I couldn't access any of these, including through the Internet Archive.
• The timeline is generally unclear. When exactly was the review announced? Did the review happen after it was disclosed? Was it announced then performed? Was it announced after it had begun but before it had finished? It would be most helpful to put things in chronological order and identify dates when necessary/relevant.
• Again, related to chronology: Incorporate the reactions into the article in a clearer way to reflect what exactly they are reacting to (i.e. the original policy, the review, or the revised policy).
  • You'll have to exercise some discretion here, but see (for example) how I moved the CCLA lawsuit up to the section related to the revised version. If this section got large enough, subsections might then be helpful. But, generally, it's confusing to only mention the protests after you mention the final revised policy.
• Following the change to Policy 713 in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan followed suit and implemented a similar policy in its schools.
  • This is unclear. What exactly did Saskatchewan do? Did they imitate the original policy or its revisions? In what ways?
• I've removed statements from non-notable people (parents/students/people not affiliated with organizations). Unless their statements were disseminated by multiple sources, I think inclusion poses WP:NPOV issues.
• I did some work, but the lead needs more revision. Try WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY for advice.
• What were the general arguments of proponents and opponents of the review? Hundreds of people protested, but what issues were they specifically addressing? (Try to avoid quotes and instead summarize several sources.)
• Be careful about saying the policy "ensures XYZ" for NPOV concerns and especially given the policy's revised contents; if this can be sourced, fine. Otherwise, I changed the wording to the more-neutral "addresses XYZ", "requires XYZ".
• Okay, I think my eyes are glazing over. I've reached my capacity of possible edits without doing a deep-dive of sources. I reiterate my suggestion of implementing further edits and then taking this to peer review. If you drop by my talk page, I'm also happy to take another look.

I think there are some great bones here. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Wracking ^talk! 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Wracking ^talk! 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, @Wracking. I'll answer some of your questions below.

• Policy 713 also instructed that the establishment of a Gender-Sexuality Alliance club would be supported by school personnel and principals, with parental consent not being a requirement to join.
  • This can be used as a secondary source, but to fully rely on it would mean that the original sentence needs to be cut down.
• I can probably find more secondary sources regarding the revised version, I'm guessing this concern is regarding sources from the Government of New Brunswick, right? I'll try to look for more secondary sources to use for those bits, I may be able to given how much coverage news outlets such as CBC News gave Policy 713.
• "is there a shorter (and sourceable) name for Department of Education and Early Childhood Development?"
  • Officially, no. The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development is the official name of the government agency in question (that Hogan currently serves as a minister of). It was, however, previously called the Department of Education over a decade ago. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is picky when it comes to what you choose to use as an official Government agency name, so I just used the full department name.
• More detail needed in Original version section. Why was the bill first enacted? What was the surrounding context? What were the responses at the time? What, if any, were the effects of the initial bill? Was criticism mounting before 2023?
  • I previously have tried looking for backround surrounding the bill, but I couldn't really find anything. I tried using the Telegraph-Journal's digital archive (when that was still up) but to no avail. I had seen maybe about a couple news articles throughout 2021-2022 that mentioned Policy 713, but it wasn't much of use to the article; the only 'background' that I had found while searching was just a point that somebody from an LGBTQ+ organization in New Brunswick assisted in the creation of the original version of the Policy. I couldn't find anything surrounding what reason this policy was made, any possible context to the creation of it, or early reactions to it. I personally never knew the policy existed prior to May 2023 when it started receiving news coverage due to the government review, and from my own findings in the past through Twitter searches and news archive searches I can say with confidence that it wasn't really known prior to May 2023. If I were to assume, it likely would've only been known to mostly government officials and those who worked in the educational field, but I couldn't find much at all about Policy 713 prior to its review receiving news coverage. No, there was not criticism mounting before 2023.
• Watch out for WP:NPOV wording, specifically MOS:WTW (within that, MOS:EDITORIAL, MOS:SAID)
  • I have been aware of this for a bit now, I just haven't been totally sure on how I can address it. I have tried asking for help about this, but not much has happened. I'll be open about the fact that I did make this article as a student in New Brunswick who is an avid supporter of queer people, so I am pretty biased regarding this topic. I am far from being a strong writer (I use Wikipedia to work on my writing skills), so I can definitely see the issues surrounding MOS:EDITORIAL & MOS:SAID at the time of writing it. I also tried using more 'fancy' wording at the time, but overall I was totally new to writing with a WP:NPOV. Legal proceedings surrounding Policy 713 are still ongoing, but now that coverage has slowed down on the topic I can probably look to see what improvements I can make surrounding WP:NPOV when I have the time.
• If possible, non-Telegraph-Journal refs would be nice. I couldn't access any of these, including through the Internet Archive.
  • The Telegraph-Journal is a subscription newspaper/news outlet based in New Brunswick, so although most people outside of NB won't be able to access those sources I feel like keeping them is pretty important due to local coverage. I can try to find sources that are similar to them, but if you need to see any of the TJ sources feel free to contact me through Discord (B3251) and I'll be open to share what any of the articles read.
• The timeline is generally unclear. When exactly was the review announced? Did the review happen after it was disclosed? Was it announced then performed? Was it announced after it had begun but before it had finished? It would be most helpful to put things in chronological order and identify dates when necessary/relevant.
  • (This is also relevant to your next point, regarding protests being placed under the final revised version) I had attempted to fix the timeline, but I couldn't wrap my head around how to structure the article. I see that you fixed this, which I had tried doing before but couldn't figure out how to change the wording to. Timeline-sense, the review was announced after the learning session for teachers on May 5, which Hogan put out a statement for later that day in which he denied any department involvement in the session.
  • This publication from May 8 is the first news article that reported on the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development announcing that they were reviewing the policy, though it also confirms that it had been put under review earlier. Here's some notes I made below while re-reading the article.
    • Gail Costello, a co-chair of Pride in Education (who helped organize this session), contested Hogan ("Costello said Hogan's statement is also inaccurate because the department was directly involved in supporting the sessions, including by funding planning meetings at the departmental offices.")
    • According to Costello, the review was underway as early as late April ("She said that in late April, however, the department told Pride in Education that there's to be no money for the sessions and it ordered departmental staff to not participate because the gender identity policy was under review.")
    • I think it may also be worth mentioning that the Policy was signed by Dominic Cardy, the previous department minister. Cardy also states in the article "he's been told by contacts within government the review was ordered by the premier."
    • According to Costello, "It's very common to review policies after 10 or 12 years. This is a year and a half. Why are they reviewing it after a year and half?"
    • (Cardy said he signed the policy in 2020, and Higgs raised questions about the policy soon afterward, but the Progressive Conservative caucus supported it and the premier did not act on it at the time. He said the premier's role is the only possible explanation for the sudden decision to "roll back a policy that was years in the making" and that has been in effect for a couple of years "without any incident.") This is likely useful for adding on to the 'background' of the Policy, looks like I was partly wrong in what I said much earlier and overlooked this part of the article. Though, concerns/criticisms regarding the Policy prior to the review doesn't seem to have been made by anybody other than the premier; the policy, as stated by Cardy, has been in effect for a couple of years "without any incident."
  • Another publication from May 8 may also be useful
  • Publication from May 9:
    • Hogan said the government decided to conduct the review a few months ago after it heard concerns raised by a variety of groups, including teachers.
  • Final thoughts regarding this question: I don't think there is a specific timestamp as to when the review was first put underway, just reports stating that it was placed under review prior to the learning session for teachers. I couldn't find exactly what date the department said that it was putting it under review, but the first publication is from Monday, May 8. You could assume that it was announced then, but since the learning session was the previous Friday I don't know if you can be completely sure.
    • Later correction: this source provides a behind-the-scenes timeline. The review began on April 21, 2023. This is very useful for the article!
• "This is unclear. What exactly did Saskatchewan do? Did they imitate the original policy or its revisions? In what ways?"
  • I should be more specific regarding what Saskatchewan did; I added this after multiple outlets reported on Saskatchewan's legislation and drew parallels to New Brunswick's government reviewing Policy 713. Hopefully this answers your question.
    • Lines 3-6 in this article goes into more detail about what Saskatchewan did and its similarities to New Brunswick. Quoted in the article: “A new policy effective today will require parental consent when students under 16 years old wish to change their pronouns and/or preferred first name,” the letter read in part. The article also later brings up New Brunswick and Saskatchewan legislation similarities to what the former Manitoba premier Heather Stephanson promised if she were re-elected.
    • Additionally, this source as well as this source both mention Saskatchewan's policy requiring students under 16 to have parental consent before using preferred pronouns/names. Overall, that's what the similar policy in question implemented by Saskatchewan has to deal with, and these sources in particular (and definitely more) drew the connection to New Brunswick's revision of Policy 713 due to both of them making it a requirement for parental consent for students under 16 to use preferred pronouns/names. I hope this helps!
• "I've removed statements from non-notable people (parents/students/people not affiliated with organizations). Unless their statements were disseminated by multiple sources, I think inclusion poses WP:NPOV issues."
  • That makes sense. Based on the article I went over earlier, would it be a good idea to further mention Costello in the article? I think adding Cardy's signing of the policy as well as mentioning some of what he said in the CBC article may be useful to add to the article. Thoughts?
• "What were the general arguments of proponents and opponents of the review? Hundreds of people protested, but what issues were they specifically addressing? (Try to avoid quotes and instead summarize several sources.)"
  • I'll try to find some extra time in the future to further research for this question, since I feel that it'll take more time than the other questions.
• "Be careful about saying the policy "ensures XYZ" for NPOV concerns and especially given the policy's revised contents; if this can be sourced, fine. Otherwise, I changed the wording to the more-neutral "addresses XYZ", "requires XYZ"."
  • What would be the case about saying the policy "ensures XYZ" if many of the sources in question does mention "ensure" or "setting standards" for things such as "making the educational environment safe for LGBTQ+ students"? I know that I've seen quite a lot of sources mention this. For example:
    • Quoted in this article: Policy 713 set standards for making schools safe and inclusive for LGBTQ+ students. It said a principal would consult with students under 16 who want to change their preferred first name before using it for reports or record-keeping. It ensured all students would be able to participate in school and extracurricular activities that are safe, welcoming and consistent with their gender identity. And it said all students should have access to washroom facilities that align with their gender identity.
    • Quoted in this article: Policy 713, implemented in 2020, sets out guidelines for schools to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for LGBTQ students. This article is also useful in mentioning when specifically Saskatchewan implemented its similar policy.
    • Quoted in this article: Policy 713, introduced in 2020, establishes minimum standards for schools to ensure a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment for LGBTQ students. This is also quoted in this article.
    • This article has a very similar quote to the one above: Implemented in 2020, Policy 713 is meant to ensure there is a supportive environment for students, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.
    • Quoted in this article: Policy 713 was introduced in 2020 after nearly a decade of development and ensures an inclusive environment for LGBTQ2 youth in the school system. The 'nearly a decade of development' part is useful for the article, just noting for myself to add later.
    • Quoted in this article: He told CBC News he has no objections to the current policy, which sets minimum standards for schools to provide a safe, inclusive space for LGBTQ students. "He" in question being Ross Wetmore, a Progressive-Conservative party member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick (MLA). It's also worth mentioning that this article is from CBC News.
  • I could definitely find more, but here are just a few I found from searching on google. Would sources like these, which commonly describe the original policy as something like "setting standards for a safe and inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ students" allow for saying the policy "ensures XYZ"? Something similar maybe?

Thanks for the help! I'll try to work on the article again soon, as I've definitely discovered some very useful information for the article through this extra digging. Please let me know if you need help accessing any of the subscription-based Telegraph-Journal articles, I have full access to them and I'm open to sharing what they say if you'd like. B3251 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay! Thanks for your detailed responses, I'll bullet-point some thoughts I have:

• My main concern regarding primary sources was when the source was either the policy text itself or the Lamrock report itself. See WP:PRIMARY for specific instructions about handling primary sources. I think it's okay if you use the sources per #3 and stay mindful of #4. I can't speak to how GA reviewers treat primary sources in their reviews.
• Yep, just go with the longer "Department of Education and Early Childhood Development" if there's no sourceable acronym or abbreviation; could possibly be shortened to "the department" where this doesn't impede clarity.
• WP:NPOV seemed generally okay to me besides tone, which I worked on in my copy edit. I think the additions you've done since my copy edit (which I haven't reviewed in-depth) only serve to increase the scope and coverage of the article, which bodes well for neutrality.
• I'm glad you were able to find more sources on the timeline of events! I think this really helps the overall structure of the article.
• As for "ensures" – I think you're right here, and should use the word when relevant. We go by what sources say, so if sources say Policy 713 ensures XYZ, we can too. I think my main question about the "ensures" language was in the review & revision; parts of the revised policy somewhat flipped the original policy's intent – e.g., the original ensured that kids would be called by their preferred names without parental consent, but the revised version only ensured that for kids >16. (it still did ensure it in some regard, though)
• Also, as for the Telegraph-Journal, I wouldn't worry about it too much – definitely don't remove any of those as they're key to the article, but I'd recommend adding additional sources when possible so it's easier for others to verify.
• One last recommendation: If possible, mention the original provisions that were changed in that section. For example, the "Revised version" section says The change removed mentions of allowing students to participate in extracurricular activities. If you have the info, I think it would be helpful to add to the "Original version" section what the original version of the policy said.

Best, Wracking ^talk! 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out what I had done! I'll see if there's any secondary sources for Lamrock's report that I could add to the article when I can, as well as any other work that could be done. B3251 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)