Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No issues or controversy

The article currently explains the reasons for opposition to the program as it "pressured kids" and "confuses them". None of that is explained. How are kids pressured? Where are the reports of the kids being pressured? How does it confuse them? Where are the reports of confused kids? If you have that then you might have justification for inclusion of an issues section. A review found that the program was consistent with the goals of the national curriculum - non-issue. Meanwhile the program has gained support, further minimising the case for an Issues section. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiftchange. In carefully reading your comments, I suggest your, "no-issues-or-controversy", "nothing-to-see-here-just-move-on" position can not be defended. For an encyclopedia, these background social issues are as equally valid as the Redcliffe Fire Station#History. Irrespective of what you say, the Safe Schools program does raise concerns. I agree with User:Spacecowboy420 that, "you are unlikely to offer a neutral point of view while editing this article". B20097 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You can make all the suggestions you like but I am not going to be convinced unless a reason or explanation as to why my position cannot be defended is provided. I've made my case several times with clear enough explanations, citing references and our policies. Few of my points have been addressed directly. I am not the one who wants to include opinions and quotations or who makes these very strange edits or uses references to people who suggest our prime minister be dropped off at sea or who only edits articles within a narrow range of topics. Why are these "equally valid" as you suggest? Again you don't provide a reason. The history of things which are established has always been included in our articles. Whereas the view of a Christian lobby group are rarely mentioned in our articles. We aren't here to document various social "concerns". That is so weird for an encyclopedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't disagree with you at all in principle, but the nature of Wikipedia, and articles that become controversial, is that there needs to be a consensus outcome that even people who support questionable views can live with, within the broad boundaries of policy. The easiest way to do this is to document the controversy, within the boundaries of undue weight - and in this case, as while the review found the critics' concerns to be bunkum, Malcolm Turnbull's lack of control of his caucus meant that they got their own way anyway and the program was fundamentally gutted at a federal level, the "controversy" does have a reasonably critical link to the article content. You can try to say that the criticism is crap in Wikipedia voice - or you can put it in the article in their words and let reasonable people make their own conclusions when George Christensen starts ranting about pedophiles (or, in the case of unreasonable people, to agree with him!).

The article doesn't explain how the program confuses kids or pressures kids, or to back this up with evidence because none of the critics do - because, factually, it is crap. However, it is what the (yes, correctly, homophobic and transphobic) opponents of the program claim, with sufficient success in the Liberal caucus to severely impact upon the program outside of Victoria and the ACT. This is, at this point, a fairly significant part of the history of the program. This is why we represent what the "critics" actually said and let readers make up their own minds - again, within the boundaries of undue weight. Someone who is homophobic will read what the ACL and Christensen have to say and go "woo!", and someone who agrees with me and you and doesn't hate LGBT people will go "..." - and I'm good with that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife A good summary. Thank you. B20097 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A good summary of Shiftchange's points would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I personally don't care about LGBT issues in this article, I have my own personal feelings, but these have nothing to do with my edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar to both User:The Drover's Wife and User:Spacecowboy420 for your NPOV work. B20097 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Category?

Category:Suicide prevention is the only thing I wasn't sure of. We might need to create Category:Suicide prevention organisations. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

no comprendo

Leaving aside any edits to the article for the moment I was hoping someone could indulge me. I'm not being biased, I'm being objective. I don't understand what relevance people of faith have to LGBTIQ rights and education topics. Looking at the categories we can see this topic is not related to religion. Groups like the ACL aren't representative or elected or stakeholders in this matter. They have no connection to a voluntary program to help school kids with bullying - none. Those opinions, their viewpoint and their concerns therefore have no relevance to the matter. They don't represent students or parents or teachers. What a group of random Christians (or some random ethnic group) say about this program is therefore not relevant and so doesn't belong.

If we look at the definition of relevance we see that (A or ACL or Christians) is relevant when it increases the likelihood of accomplishing the goal (T or task or the safety and wellbeing of the LGBTIQ school community). The removal of SSA as advocated by the ACL is contrary to the safety and well-being of the LGBTIQ school community. We also know that religious groups in Australia are allowed to discriminate against LGBTIQ people so we know that their activities are contrary to the purpose of this program. We aren't oblidged to duplicate their claims here unless some tangible link has been made. Just because some believers, politically active publications and politicians who draw on their vote describe something as controversial doesn't mean that it is controversial. If the claims made have been proven to be false then we are obliged to correct the record. If what caused an initial buzz in the media has been dis-proven then there cannot be any enduring significance to that event. We have to use our hindsight and look at things objectively. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As Spacecowboy420 said to you on 8 Sept 2016, in respose to your same question > Try re-wording your comment to "I would particularly like to know why the views of the Australian Christian Lobby must be outlined on a controversial LGBT organization" and I guess the answer will be obvious. B20097 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You both seem unable to answer the question without fallacy. Why is that? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotes

Anecdotal evidence that the program helps students has been widely reported.<cite1><cite2>, etc

There are many reports of individuals discussing how the program has benefited their education. There are very few (if any) reports from students expressing anything against the program. I want to make sure that this anecdotal evidence for its success is included appropriately. Is the sentence above appropriate or is this aspect better to be avoided? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ideology?

The article mentions ideology twice but this is not explained. What ideology? I am not sure what it is referring to. The review found no ideology in the material. Could editors who added that material please expand upon that so the specific ideology and beliefs that are referred to are made clear. Otherwise it looks like its just made up. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Now clarified within article B20097 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation for self-harm, comparision

Many professionals in this area are reluctant to make statements regarding causes of suicide, so as to not reinforce that thinking. It will therefore be difficult to find a good citation for that. Would a cost comparison or statement linking it to another national "student support service" like the National School Chaplaincy Programme be appropriate? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow! This Safe Schools Coalition article is about the Safe Schools Coalition. Suggest 'self-harm' related commentary belongs in a 'self-harm' article. B20097 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please fix

The meaningless statement "some reservations remain" keeps being added when it serves no point but to be disruptive. Its too vague and contains no significant facts. It doesn't belong. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The chronology of the (long) lede implies that all is now well with the program. All has been "fixed". "However some reservations remain in relation to this program". That is a short / fair desption of the current status. The sentence could be elaborated and more citations provided. For instance the current citation says the SSC program is to be debated in the NSW parliament next week. Because it is the lede - the sentence is a short summary with more information in the body of the article. All a bit like, the uncited, "Since the program gained media attention and a review was conducted school membership has increased." B20097 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Are there remaining reservations ? From the ==State and Territory Government positions== NSW - reservations yes, Vic - serious conflict, Qld - reservations yes, SA - reservations yes, WA - reservations yes, Tas - ?, ACT - serious conflict, NT - ? Should we elaborate on this within that above lede sentence? B20097 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That sort of statement could be said about many things, including say Elizabeth II. How about you go to Barack Obama and add a similar statement with a source to that page. Feelings about things matter less than statements about things around here. I don't believe their are any reservations worth mentioning. There is no point having conniptions over an anti-bullying program, just like getting worked up about gender-neutral language is a bit silly. All I can see is the program's widespread acceptance, its success and a review which found nothing untoward. Everything taught in this program is all good and aligned with the Australian Curriculum. The experts aren't penning peer-reviewed papers outlining some covert ideology seeking to lead kids astray. If you can't accept the results of an independent review by a professor in the national spotlight, what is it that you are seeking? Anyone concerned should just contact the organisation or their school principal. That is what I would do. Maybe pen a letter to an editor of a publication or speak to a member of Parliament. If someone still had "concerns" or "fears" I would advise they seek medical help but not pastoral care. If they still don't like it then they can choose to not place their child in the program. What someone who has concerns about the program should not do, is to use Wikipedia as a forum to express these fears. In my readings about it I have yet to come across one student who has a single bad word to say about the program they participated in. If Christensen had any evidence of criminality his responsibility was to go to the police with evidence. Please, I don't want to have to explain these things repeatedly. I'd rather be improving articles. Also, the lead length is not problematic and not every statement needs a citation because some things aren't open to interpretation. The September 2016 figure for membership is attributed to the official website, a primary source, which may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence refers to 'numbers'. There is no dispute with those. The problem was the non sequitur structure of the article-sentence, without a supporting citation. This is now fixed. Will deal with the rest of the above issues, in due time. B20097 (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To invoke Elizabeth II, Barack Obama and medical help - words fail me. 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B20097 (talk • contribs)

Instruction/explicit content

The following is a key fact about the program that should be in the lead. The reason would be that falsehoods regarding this aspect are spread widely. Concerned parents (inspired by fear) might turn to Wikipedia wanting to know if these type of things are true or not. Things which Bernadi and the ACL have claimed have been dis-proven by numerous sourced statements in the article as well as the review. Its up to us to inform readers of this sort of basic fact.

It does not include instructions or explicit content.

The root social issue of homophobia should also be mentioned in the lead. If the lead needs further trimming, the details of recent changes should be moved into the body. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. What did the review say? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you raise what 'ACL's claims'? when the only SSC mention and not even rating a Wikilink is a rebuttal by a NSW (lesbian) MLC of a July 2015 Queensland petition.

To assist and 'inform readers', suggest that 'See also' should include the SSC-relevant: *Gay-friendly, *Homohysteria, *Prehomosexual, *Transgender youth and possibly *Heterosexism. B20097 (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the claim that "It does not include instructions or explicit content." based on? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How about the review, the organisation itself and your own eyes. The materials have been independently reviewed for age appropriate use in schools. What does age-appropriate mean? It means it is suitable for children. In no reasonable interpretation could that possibly include sexual instruction or explicit content. Do you really think more than 500 schools would join a program which distributes sexual content to children, a crime in Australia? Can you imagine how careful the developers of this would of been to make sure it keeps getting funded? Have any students or parents come forward making such complaints? You can check the material here. Please accept the fact that the program materials were suitable, educationally sound and age-appropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote the review and cut this bullshit stone dead. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Which review? 2. The organization? well, that is a primary source, secondary source please. 3. My own eyes? that would be original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Its in the review, its not open to interpretation. 2. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia 3. Only if you sourced statements to them. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said "which review?"

Primary sources may be used in Wikipedia. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"

Saying that something is not explicit, is not a statement of fact.

Come on, if it's not explicit, I'm sure there is a nice reliable secondary source out there somewhere. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you verify the source to see if the claim regarding the inclusion of explicit content was factual? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read that source? "activities in three lessons ... may not be suitable in all contexts" "not suitable for primary schools" and please point out where it states that it is not explicit. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Its implied by the word suitable. Its implied by age appropriateness and laws against showing sexual content to minors. I have read the report and it explains that some of the content was removed because it was not easily understood by younger students not because it was pornographic. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"implied" ? We don't add content based on implications, we base content on facts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes and the statement added is factual. Its the same conclusion as that implied by the source. For your point to be valid suitable and age-appropriate would have to reasonably mean to include sexual instructions and explicit content, which is a crime. As we know the sensitive content was outside of this program and is therefore a separate issue related to what Birmingham calls e-safety. One of the changes was that all references to external organisations like Minus 18 are to be removed. I suggest you elaborate on the outside links which were part of the program but then removed, if you want readers to be aware of this aspect. Birmingham's press conference may be useful. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Spacecowboy420 - if the article includes the statement (eg this version) that "All of the official resources are age-appropriate and do not include sexual instructions or explicit content" then the reference should support that statement directly, and a specific page number (or quote) from the ref would be helpful.

• I did a quick search through that reference and found no mention of the word "instruction" - ie it does not say "there are no sexual instructions". But feel free to point out exactly where in the ref it directly says words to that effect.
• It does include "The three resources [which are "official" per section 1.2] ... use informal and direct language" (my emphasis). I suggest that one might reasonably consider "direct language" to be explicit, rather than implicit.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And so the reason for its removal or the basis of a challenge would be what? I mean is it just my imagination as to what the review found or don't you believe the review? I don't understand the irrationality around this program. I don't see why we have to pander to biassed editors so much. I have found supporting statements in a few opinion pieces and also this buzzfeed article. I'm fairly certain it will be in an FAQ that SSCA are planning on releasing so we may have a primary source then. Would a compromise be? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The review concluded that the program's content was suitable and age-appropriate.

Shiftchange

P17 of the review says "Schools should make their own judgements about the age-appropriateness and suitability of OMG I’m Queer and OMG My Friend’s Queer," - it does not say that they are age-appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And so the reason for its removal or the basis of a challenge would be what? I mean is it just my imagination as to what the review found .. I'm simply saying that the reference should directly support any statement that we add to the article. As The Drover's Wife suggested, the best way would be a direct quote from the review, then we don't need to haggle about implications. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, probably yes. But it doesn't have to unless there is a valid reason. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

" Its the same conclusion as that implied by the source." we. don't. come. to. conclusions. sources. give. facts. not. implications.

You think it's right. It might well be right. That's not the point.

We give facts. We are not an advice center. We are not a blog.

If you have an agenda, then go post it on Facebook and say whatever you want. This isn't the place for it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I am saying its the same argument, the same conclusion. Suitable and age-appropriate can only mean no sexual instructions or sexually explicit content, unless you have some explanation as to how it is really original research. The context in the review and in Wikipedia is the same. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Suitable and age-appropriate can only mean no sexual instructions or sexually explicit content," — even if you had a reference to support that statement, it would still be synthesis to use it make the statement that there was no "sexual instructions or sexually explicit content" unless the cited reference says that explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange would a guide to putting on a condom be illegal? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on the context. We have a very specific circumstance here. Is your question directly related to this program or purely hypothetical? - Shiftchange (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So improper editorial synthesis. I think you are calling for an unnecessary level of precision and making a distinction the average reader would find unreasonable but that is the way it works here. From the Executive summary of the review: Four official Guides appropriate. Official posters are suitable and may be in-appropriate because of some younger students may not be familiar with those terms. All of Us is suitable and age-appropriate. Three resources created by young people which were not intended for classroom setting OMG I’m Queer, OMG My Friend’s Queer and Stand Out are suitable for use with some exceptions. So how about? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The review found that classroom content was suitable and age-appropriate with the exception of the posters which may of included language unfamiliar to younger students.

Some of the content is not suitable for some age groups. That should be added to the above. But yeah, that's much closer to suitable content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange's proposal above seems reasonable. I presume however that "may of" should be "may have", in which case it could be shortened slightly to:

The review found that classroom content was suitable and age-appropriate with the exception of the posters, which may include language unfamiliar to younger students.

To address Spacecowboy420's comment ("...not suitable for some age groups"), I propose changing it to:

The review found that classroom content was suitable and age-appropriate for Year 7–8 students. The posters may include language unfamiliar to younger students.

References

Depending on where in the lead section this goes, it might need to be "a review" instead of "the review" - depending on whether or not the review has been mentioned yet. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Parkinson

The added section about the supposed "review" by Patrick Parkinson was massively misleading. It wasn't a "review" in any official capacity: it was a far-right, outspokenly homophobic and transphobic academic (over many years), with longstanding ties to the Australian Christian Lobby, reading something that he didn't like and having a chat to The Australian. At best it warranted a sentence in with the other "critics", and it's no more significant than any of the other thirty conservative commentators The Australian has drawn out in their campaign against Safe Schools. Y'all can do better than pretending that a lifelong ideologue who doesn't think trans people should be allowed to exist was providing a neutral, fact-based assessment of the program. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, its misleading to give the impression that the quality of the reviews (if you can call it that) are comparable. Was it even published, or peer-reviewed? Wouldn't it just be an opinion piece and therefore not reliable? - Shiftchange (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't realise just how deep the connection went - the ACL has actually paid him to commission anti-LGBT work for them before. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Parkinson now in Issues section and the wording consolidated to four sentences. B20097 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Referring to him as "reviewed by family law and child-protection expert Patrick Parkinson" wildly misrepresents who Parkinson is, what his connection to this issue is, and what his ideology on the subject is. It even selectively quotes what he said to try to make him sound like more like a neutral assessor, when his views about LGBT people are more extreme than most of the people quoted here. I don't see why Parkinson is particularly notable among conservative commentators on this issue (he's just the latest in a long line to air their views in The Australian, he has no notable expertise on LGBT issues beyond his previous paid anti-LGBT work for the ACL, and it's not like his views have been cited any more than any of the others) but if you're going to insist that it go in it needs to be honest about these things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As "Patrick Parkinson" "Finding the Sensible Centre" turns up all of seven Google hits, all of them apart from The Australian article and Parkinson's actual piece being blogs, I suggest ditching the reference to him entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Its not actually a review of the program at all. Its just an ideologically-driven backgrounder written in a attempt to lend support to those who shun diversity. From page 1 the paper says "seeks to draw attention" and "ought to be rectified". No independence at all, just another part of the campaign to weaken support for the program. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would someone being a far-right, outspokenly homophobic and transphobic academic have any effect on their comments being included here? Are we only allowed to include content that supports the point of view that you like? The only important word regarding using his comments is academic - the amount of loyalty towards this program is really funny. I get the feeling that some people here are not interested in making a neutral article, they are more concerned with making as positive as possible an article on a group they support. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This was a massively biased four-sentence writeup of an ideologue's backgrounder that was cited in one single story in The Australian. I'm all for outspoken homophobes and transphobes being cited here where they are relevant and where the writeups are not misleading, and the article already cites several of them. Parkinson is less notable than every single person cited here in the article - and the attempt at summarising what he had to say was as biased and misleading as it gets. We don't cite things with two non-blog Google hits on a controversial topic when there are people with hundreds of WP:RSs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording, "family law and child-protection expert Patrick Parkinson" came directly from the citation. Attack a person as, "far right", an "ideologue", a "homophobe", a "transphobe", with a motive to "shun diversity" is classic argumentum ad hominem. I note that Acting UWA Vice-Chancellor, Professor Bill Louden, with his review examining SSC diversity and inclusivity, has said UWA had a strong record of commitment to diversity and inclusivity. The SSC article reads more POV than P&G B20097 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is, itself, a biased framing, and not surprising since its source so staunchly opposes Safe Schools as a publication that we mention it in the critics section. We mention Louden because he's the person the federal government picked to review the program, and because there's hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources about his comments on that basis. Parkinson's opinion is so insignificant that literally no other media outlet except for The Australian reported it at all. On a controversial article where many, many people have expressed opinions in WP:RS (several of which are referenced in this article), we don't rely on one single newspaper article and three or four blogs just because it makes a claim you really want in the article as long as you can mislead readers about its origin. It is not the "rival review" you want to pretend it is, and the sources don't support that claim; it's just yet another conservative commentator, in this case one with a well-documented history of paid work for the Australian Christian Lobby, sharing his thoughts in an article for The Australian. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked that section regarding reliable sources. Can you point out which Wikipedia guideline requires multiple newspaper articles in order to qualify as a reliable source, please? All I can find is Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"

Oh and..."Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." WP:BIASED Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why, specifically, Parkinson? There was an actual coherent argument for including all of the other people who were included; this just amounts to "I agree with the author of that one The Australian article and want his comments in, while intentionally trying to mislead readers about who Parkinson is and what his beliefs on LGBTI issues are", even though they're so insignificant no other reliable source ran them and only a couple blogs and a couple Facebook pages beyond that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Did Parkinson bring anything original to the discussion? Parkinson's views have already been outlined in the article. There is nothing specific in his criticism which adds any new information and so it doesn't improve the article. We are already aware some people think its flawed, or they have concerns or reservations and that they don't like it. Parkinson didn't "review" the program in the same way that Louden did and so having a paragraph about his beliefs is undue weight. Its not fair to our readers to try to convince them that there is a widespread concern with the program when it comes from a section of the religious right. How about we include more comments from schools principals or from mental health experts who support the program. Parkinson is just another in a long line of people who want to reinforce a particular point of view, a view already adequately covered in the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

One more time - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

You can't dismiss sourced and notable viewpoints just because they are from the "religious right", just the same as you can't dismiss viewpoints just because they are from the politically correct, liberal left.

It's not undue weight, it's just that you don't like his comments.

You create balance by showing all notable viewpoints, not by removing those you don't agree with.

The readers will read the viewpoints and make their own minds up about how relevant or widespread the concern is, we just give the facts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That viewpoint has already been elucidated upon, clearly. All of the concerns were addressed with a review and the changes, as the article makes clear. I'm fairly certain we have written the definitive online source for the subject. Is there any part of the article you don't comprehend? Do you understand other editors have a problem with the independence of that author and that the relevance of these ideologues has also been questioned? Let us be proud of what we have achieved and come back in three months for an update. I'm going to step away from this, because quite frankly these discussions are the most absurd thing I have felt the need to undertake here. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You have abjectly failed to argue any kind of case for Parkinson's views actually being notable. You, two dudes on Facebook, and two dudes with blogs are the only people outside of The Australian to have even acknowledged that they exist. This was not the case with the people mentioned in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Me, two dudes on Facebook, two dudes with blogs and Australia's biggest-selling national newspaper - sorry, should I repeat that? Australia's biggest-selling national newspaper - obviously that makes it very notable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 is correct. Louden rectified some problems, but by no means are the issues settled. There remains considerable community concern about the objectives and emphasis of this SSC program. At the moment the SSC Wikipedia article looks similar to a SSC Website article. For instance, take the lede 271 words, of which 262 (97%) could have been written by the SSC PR Dept. B20097 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Still very open to discussing other content in the article, as before, although the more antics pulled about this indefensible Parkinson nonsense the less that's the case. The Australian is not the biggest-selling national newspaper: it barely outsells the Adelaide Advertiser, and is thrashed by nearly all other metropolitan daily newspapers. And as it's all of one article in a paper that has published hundreds of anti-Safe Schools articles as part of a concerted campaign, no, that doesn't establish notability. So, try again with some actual facts this time, rather than things Spacecowboy420 wishes were true. We can either negotiate in good-faith towards a consensus version of this article, or you can try to repeatedly insert irrelevant material that you know to be misleading into the article because you're more concerned about trying to establish your POV: your choice. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you like me to explain exactly what a national newspaper is?

And what exactly do you think I wish were true? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Language filter

I'm not sure what the point trying to be made by this inclusion is. It is absolutely not uncommon for web filters to block LGBTI terms generally - like, some social media sites have been known to block things like "lesbian" because they're deemed to be pornographic. A web filter blocking the word "queer" says more about the filter than it does about the resource, unless it's alleged that it was some other language. Where is the story here? This was removed by consensus like a week ago? If you have issue with Shiftchange's additions, deal with Shiftchange's additions rather than trying to run up the anti-Safe School word count with literally anything you can find. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation [28] says (in relation to home computers), "Some students don’t have access to the internet at home, or it is monitored by their family so having access at school is really important". [The SSC empowerment of children to be disobedient to parents]

Citation [28] says (in relation to school computers): "Are any of them blocked? If so, for what reason? Speak to a teacher . . ."

Citation [28] says (in relation to putting up LGBTIQ posters), "If your school or teachers say no, ask for reasons and see if they make sense. If they don’t seem reasonable, try another teacher, or you may have to be creative about where you place them". [The SSC empowerment of children to be disobedient to teachers]

This is all wikified as: "Safe Schools material provides advice for secondary students faced with explicit-content-filters on computers and with resistance to displaying LGBTIQ posters".[28]

Citation [21] says (in response to the above): "Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg is managing director of the Young and Well Co-operative Research Centre, which produced the :Growing Up Queer report in 2014 showing that two-thirds of young LGBTI students are bullied at school. He is critical of the Safe Schools strategy encouraging students to defy teachers who do not let them put up posters or access gay websites" [saying] "The civil disobedience is not wise.’’ [Being an observation of the above parental and teacher disobedience.]

This is wikified as: "Child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg says, "The civil disobedience is not wise".[21]

All serious issues. B20097 (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit of a different story: the edit summaries implied that Carr-Gregg was purely referring to "ask another teacher if your teacher disagrees with you" as being "civil disobedience." I reinstated the edit accordingly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

_________________

1. Can you respond to the language filter issue I raised earlier? I still don't see what the issue is (and why it's significant to mention here). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

2. I can not provide any clearer explanation of this SSC-imprimatur-to-disobey-parents problem, which is a serious indictment of SSC. Fix the article any way you like. I will be unlikely to revisit it. B20097 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

3. I'm talking about the ACL petition to the Queensland Parliament? I have no idea what that has to do with disobeying parents, but I'm open to listening. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your last comment makes no sense whatsoever. Please read carefully the above lines, in sequence, 1. 2. and 3. If you want to know more about the 'ACL petition to the Queensland Parliament' and the explicit SSC wording which offends politicians, please read citations [37], [40] and [44]. B20097 (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither the Sydney Morning Herald article nor the primary source petition make any mention of the "intemperate language" issue at all, and The Australian article is unreadable as it is behind their paywall. Why is a filter baulking at LGBT-related language notable? I'm fine with the language in the currently in the article about the Carr-Gregg issue; the previous edit summaries had implied that the phrasing in the article was referring to the suggestion they talk to a teacher (or talk to a different teacher), but the text cited there is enough to justify the article text. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you have got yourself into a complex tangle of two unrelated matters. One being 'Language filter' and Two being the 'Queensland Parliament petition' They are located in different sections, and nowhere near each other, in the article. I am sorry if you can't read The Australian, but that does not exclude it from being a RS. WP:PAYWALL Citation [40] says in part, "The wording of the petition was amended accordingly. So, this quotation is considered “intemperate language” in a parliamentary setting but is considered suitable reading for schoolchildren aged 11 and up". Suggest leave all as is. 12:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B20097 (talk • contribs)

What language is supposed to have been intemperate? I'm not arguing the source, I'm arguing the significance. Some possibly-automated process merely baulking at LGBT-related language is a very bad claim to being significant enough to be included here, but it might be arguable if it was something else (which I can't confirm either way due to the paywall). The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I will make this as polite as I can. That is incomprehensible. Suggest leave article as is. B20097 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase. You are trying to add the claim "The petition incorporated wording from a Safe Schools student resource. However the Clerk of the Parliament would not permit that wording on the Queensland parliament’s website because of the "intemperate" language." I am asking what the language claimed to be intemperate was, because that goes directly to whether that factoid is notable enough to be included in that article. It is not an ambiguous question. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

DV: As per above, (starting here _________________) your wording has moved from 'complex tangle' to 'incomprehensible' and now to 'less incomprehensible'. Suggest leave article as is. B20097 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to be uncivil. You want the article to refer to allegedly "intemperate language" in a Safe Schools resource in Wikipedia voice. What, specifically, was the alleged "intemperate language"? We cannot describe something in Wikipedia voice that our sources cannot back up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed at why so you are so determined to re-add this now after you agreed to remove that exact same text on 8 September (see your above comment ("All fine") on that day. If you have a problem with Shiftchange's additions to the article, don't take it out on me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be focused on the article sentence, However the Clerk of the Parliament would not permit that wording on the Queensland parliament’s website because of the "intemperate" language.[40]. You have said you don't have a subscription to The Australian ( again WP:PAYWALL ). However you can Google and verify this RS-sentence cited at [40]. >> The wording of the petition was amended accordingly. So, this quotation is considered “intemperate language” in a parliamentary setting but is considered suitable reading for schoolchildren aged 11 and up. In relation to "Wikipedia voice" please read, Don't copy text except for direct quotes from a person, or when the source supports a controversial point. Again, suggest leave article as is. B20097 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

An opinion column that doesn't contain basic facts (or remotely pretend to be news) is not a reliable source on anything other than the views of the author. The article needs to explain what "intemperate language" was purportedly used, so that readers can make up their own minds about that claim, or it needs to go. If those key facts are not in any of the sources, then the claim isn't reliably-enough sourced for Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Review text

This text was just added to the article: "The review determined that the Minus18 and 'network partners' websites may contain material unsuitable for younger students, and that these websites should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall, without approval."

This is absolutely not what the review said.

The review said "There may, however, be material on some of these websites that would not be suitable for younger students, and material that should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall unless it had been specifically approved." It explicitly stated in the previous sentence that it did not consider their content at at all; rather, it just said that such content may exist. Please correct the error. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This was again edited to restate the claim that the review had recommended that the sites not be accessed unless it had been specifically approved, despite the fact the report says no such thing. It's pretty appalling that people have actually stooped to fabricating quotes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The review did not determine "that the Minus18 and network partners' websites may contain material unsuitable for younger students, and that these websites should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall, without approval".

This a deliberate fabrication of what the report actually said ("There may, however, be material on some of these websites that would not be suitable for younger students, and material that should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall unless it had been specifically approved"). The report did not recommend that these websites should not be accessed - and considering that you just took out an actual quote and reinserted the fabrication, there's no excuse of ignorance here. Please stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check the second sentence in the first 'Findings' para, which already says, The review did not consider the contents of the Minus 18[53] website, or the contents of the network partners’ websites". The review did determine that, There may, however, be material on some of these websites that would not be suitable for younger students, and material that should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall unless it had been specifically approved. While I believe my paraphrasing of this findings-sentence is fair - it is most certainly not some "deliberate fabrication" - you are welcome to paraphrase that review finding. B20097 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The report states that there may - although they clearly state in the preceding sentence that they haven't considered the content at all - be material on those sites that should not be accessed unless specifically approved. The claim that they recommended that those sites should not be accessed is total fiction: they simply made a comment that content that might warrant such a response may exist, and you've inserted it twice now - including after it was pointed out to you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Drover's Wife's edit. In particular,:

• While B20097's version could be considered literally correct when it says that "The review determined that the Minus18 and network partners' websites may contain material unsuitable for younger students" (because the review does say that those websites may contain such material), it is misleading to say the review "determined" that, when the review did not consider those sites.
• B20097's statement (with my emphasis) that "these websites should not be accessed ..." is not the same as the review's statement (again, with my emphasis) "There may ... be ... material that should not be accessed".

I would however tweak The Drover's Wife's version slightly by deleting the word "here" (I think it's unnecessary and makes the text harder to follow) and move the full stop out of the quotation marks (because the sentence does not end there in the review):

The review did "not consider the contents of the Minus 18 website, or the contents of the network partners' websites"; it stated that "there may, however, be material on some of these websites that would not be suitable for younger students".

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote box

In the current version, the quote in the {{quote box}} is incorrect. The review says "The review does not consider the contents of the Minus 18 website,..." but the quote box says (with my emphasis added) "The review did not consider... ". Also,

• That sentence in the review does not stop at "the contents of the network partners’ website" so the quote box ought not show a full stop.
• The review includes other material between "the contents of the network partners’ website" and "All of the official resources ..." so the quote box should include an ellipsis to indicate that some material is missing.
• The review does not include a citation (in the section being quoted) for Minus 18, so the quote box ought not either. (MOS:QUOTE#Linking)

With obviously contentious material such as this it is important that we quote accurately. Independently of any changes to the article's body text, if we keep this quote box it should be accurate, without the cite and with an ellipsis. Thus:

Please change the quote box in Safe Schools Coalition Australia#Findings to:

"The review does not consider the contents of the Minus 18 website, or the contents of the network partners’ websites, ...
...
All of the official resources are consistent with the intent and objectives of the program, in that they focus on one or both of the SSCA’s two overall aims, reducing homophobic and transphobic behaviour and intersex prejudice, and increasing support for same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students."

William Louden, Review of Appropriateness and Efficacy of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia Program Resources

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're interested in actually quoting the review text today, as opposed to fiddling with the punctuation on the fabricated version after it had been pointed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

For the third? time, and putting the problem as clearly as I can. The current SSC article repeats itself 3 times:

• Second sentence under "Findings": "The review did not consider the contents of the Minus 18[53] website, . . . . .
• Top of quote box: "The review did not consider the contents of the Minus 18[53] website, . . . . .
• Last sentence under "Findings": The review did "not consider the contents of the Minus 18 website, . . . . .

Feel free to rationalise (or aggregate in some way) or not, the 3 above sentences. That is fine with me.

Also feel free to change "did not" to "does not" or whatever. That is fine with me.

As you say, this is what the review actually says:

The review does not consider the contents of the Minus 18 website, or the contents of the network partners’ websites, as these are not official resources endorsed by the Foundation for Young Australians, the national convenor of Safe Schools Coalition Australia. There may, however, be material on some of these websites that would not be suitable for younger students, and material that should not be accessed from inside a school’s Internet firewall unless it had been specifically approved.

As I had previously said to DV 13:25, 23 September 2016  : "you are welcome to paraphrase that review finding." (or directly quote it).

With great respect I think the DV accusation, "It's pretty appalling that people have actually stooped to fabricating quotes" is a bit over the top - rather than carefully reading my explanations and jointly working through this with WP:GF to create the best NPOV Wikipedia we can. B20097 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The easiest solution to this would be to remove this text: something that says "we didn't look at this at all, so we don't rule out that there could be stuff there" is not saying anything particularly useful either way. It's not a significant statement in context, and it seems like it was only added because the fabricated wording seemed politically useful to those adding it. It isn't the place in the article for a discussion about the purview of the review, however, so if that wording does go in, then the article needs to repeat itself so the added text actually makes sense in context. I don't particularly care either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Done there seems to be consensus for the change to the quote box — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 24 September 2016

Edit requested:

• Remove "charity" from Infobox status field, leaving that field blank.
• Remove "Category:Charities based in Australia" and "Category:Anti-bullying charities" from Categories.

Rationale:

Unverified - No citation is provided for charitable status; official website provides no mention of "charity" or terms derived from it. It is plausible that some member organisations of the Coalition are registered charities; the Coalition itself does not appear to be so.
It does not embiggen the organisation for us to include unverified information on it; nor does it belittle the organisation for such information to be removed.

Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. There is no supporting reason was to why SSC could possibly be considered as a "Charity." Yes - Remove all those "Charity" references. B20097 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fringe views

For anyone wondering about the community support and concern with this program compare this indication of 20 Australian Christians in attendance for a rally against and this expression of community support for the program. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Holistic education

I would like to include

The program was designed with a contextual approach in that it aims to achieve holistic outcomes towards the inclusion of diversity.

I can't find a good source for it atm. It might be related to cyberbullying which hasn't been mentioned. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Past discussions on admin boards

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Page protected) and
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/49.196.159.137/Archive.

According to the SPI, the range at 49.196.128.0/18 was blocked for by User:Favonian in September. The block log for the range shows an entry for three months with the reason 'Block evasion'. I haven't looked into the reasons for these reverts but a long-term battle involving IP-hoppers is hardly the preferred approach to WP:Dispute resolution. If there are issues, it is better to seek consensus on the talk page. I've applied three months of semiprotection to the article. This prevents IPs from editing the article but they can still use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

This cannot remain in the lead. Its too vauge and meaningless. The lead must not tease the reader or hint at content that follows. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

However reservations remain in relation to this program[8]

The articles doesn't need any more opinions from the Christian right. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, of which there are many. If the lead is, "too vauge and meaningless" on this issue, then it needs elaboration. B20097 (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It meets none of the criteria for inclusion in the lead. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that content should remain. It's the lede, it's not where we put in every tiny detail. I don't care if the opinion is from the Christian Right. If it's notable, relevant and sourced, then it's good. If we remove content based on it being from the Christian Right, can we also remove content based on it being from the politically correct liberal left? We need balance, opinions from all sides, give us that balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that this sentence must go because its a view from the Christian Right. The problem for those who want it to remain is that its not part of a summary. There aren't any reservations. All the concerns were dismissed by a review which found everything to be in order and as it should be. All of the stated concerns have been revealed to be unfounded. We know there wasn't a controversy, just a failed political campaign for a small minority of diehard believers. The program is functioning as it was expected and there are no complaints from anybody of relevance. Any imaginations that there is widespread community concerns have been dismissed as the article explains. Any concerns should be taken to school principals as has been explained. We will leave the program in its capable hands and not question our schools decision to educate according to our curriculum. Wikipedia doesn't benefit from the injections from a diminishing minority begging for relevance. Its disruptive and boring. The behaviour of those with biased agendas should never be tolerated here. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice original research. Shiftchange, I agree that "the behaviour of those with biased agendas should never be tolerated here." - what's your personal opinion about SSCA and gay rights? what do you think about the Christian Right? Let's find out more about biased agendas. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

These "reservations" whatever they are, are not that prominent. There are not a multitude of sources claiming that there are "reservations" or widespread community concerns. Tiny-minority views need not be included, here. Just because the Christian Right (or a section of that group) believes such and such, ain't good enough for automatic inclusion here. These reservations are not significant viewpoints as the article explains. Get rid of that type of stuff, its not justified. Saying there are reservations gives undue legitimacy to a discredited political campaign. Chuck it, quick smart, its not belonging at all. Please bring information about the program which fits in with the wider world. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The only change to the following sentence in the Lead, However reservations remain in relation to this program, would be to expand it. Information on the many reservations concerning the SSC and its programs are readily available here B20097 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about. How will we know when there are no more "reservations"? Did we have a source other than the Australian to support this statement? As the article makes clear Australia has embraced Safe Schools. There are no reservations worth mentioning. This is just an insignificant fringe view. Dump it. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: For clarity, is the suggestion that The Australian is a fringe source, or that The Australian reports that reservations about the programme are a fringe view? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72: The Australian is basically a broadsheet newspaper Fox News (same owner, too), and has been running a very intense anti-Safe Schools campaign from its editorial pages for several months. This article is heavily reliant on sources from it to justify its anti-Safe Schools content because they frequently run with anti-Safe Schools stories too trivial or unsubstantial for even the tabloids. (I don't have any suggestions about the lede: just explaining why it is a source of dubious reliability about this subject.) Their usage by anti-Safe Schools editors has been an ongoing issue here: we still have text in the article (discussed in the "Language Filter" section above) in which disputed factual claims are cited to an opinion column by one of The Australian 's more provocative types. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I thank you for the explanation. I assume from this, and from our article, that The Australian is a mainstream newspaper, albeit with a conservative or right wing bias; much like the Yomiuri Shimbun of Japan. Please let me know if this is in error. I notice that the discussion has moved on, and will comment further below. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as a broadsheet and having the highest circulation of any national newspaper in Australia, it doesn't really qualify as a fringe source. Again this is a case of "I don't like that content" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As was pointed out last time, The Australian barely outsells the Adelaide Advertiser despite being sold nationally. Lack of geographic focus is not a claim of significance or reliability, and its reporting on this issue (and LGBT issues more broadly) is so extremely biased that even the News Limited tabloids shy away from reporting a lot of their claims. That's not "I don't like that content", that's "it is very dubiously a reliable source" as far as this is concerned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." WP:BIASED Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant to the point that their reporting on this is not reliable as to things such as the significance of a viewpoint. The Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph aren't neutral, unbiased or objective either, but they frequently don't report stuff on this issue The Australian obsesses about - which includes things which are so trivial that coverage in other sources (including self-published blogs and social media!) is in the single digits for Google hits. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, as a major broadsheet, their statements are significant. Your claims that they obsess over something are your opinion, my statement that they have the largest circulation for a national newspaper is a fact. Should we base content and sources on your opinions, or undisputed facts? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

They are the only print newspaper in Australia that lacks a regional focus, so that they have the "largest circulation" in a category of one is pretty meaningless. They're a mid-range newspaper in terms of circulation - and, on issues such as this, not a particularly reliable one, due to their overt and extreme editorial campaigning. I'm not saying we shouldn't use them at all - they can be cited for, as in the quote you cited, "supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject", but to use the most extreme source in existence as a source for the respective significance of those viewpoints is ridiculous. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Its not obvious at all. The reliability of a source depends on context. Its not appropriate to take one source with one view and declare that statement is that and everything must follow as a consequence. You keep displaying a lack of understanding of how things works around here. Another issue in which The Australian is unreliable is climate change. The statement regarding reservations doesn't belong in the lead because it doesn't meet the criteria for placement there, its meaningless, is unreliably sourced and only exists in the minds on the fringe. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I understand the whole of this comment. Looking at the linked policy section (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) the context which matters seems to be the article content which is being verified by the source, not the article topic. Are there any uses of sources which do not verify the content for which they are being used? If so, that content should be removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange can I suggest that you focus on edits, not editors? Comments such as "You keep displaying a lack of understanding of how things works around here. " are close to a personal attack. (oh and btw. "things work")

I agree that we shouldn't take one source and base the article on it. We take one source and give it to show one point of view. We take another source and use it to show another point of view. We base the article on all of those sources. This is known as introducing balance to an article. Or are the only suitable sources, those that support the SSCA? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is intriguing. Is there a suggestion that The Australian, in its news sections (as opposed to opinion sections) is likely to misreport the news; that is, to misrepresent facts and statements? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course. Its been well documented all over the place. Here for example and on Media Watch numerous times. Back to the lead and that meaningless characterisation of some opinions on the program as reservations. Some people have reservations about the National School Chaplaincy Programme another support program but we don't include vague statements in the lead regarding that. Its undue, just like we wouldn't give anti-monarchists prominence on the Queen's page. We shouldn't be giving a platform to a fringe voice every time they stamp their feet. Its not a key fact, it doesn't establish notability nor does it summarise anything in the article. It teases the reader into wondering just what is it that is causing consternation. If you read the article it becomes clear that the stated concerns were unfounded. A review found nothing to be overly concerned about because it was age-appropriate and conforms with our curriculum. Mental health professionals, school principals, parents and students are not organising protests against SSCA. There is no movement to shut it down because there is no basis for its removal. It has been found to be functioning well and has widespread community support. The only opposition stems for the religious right who cause a lot of the problems necessitating such a program in the first place. Its like going to an article about an anti-drugs program and insisting the views of drug dealers must be included in the page. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Finally having a chance to review the link provided above, I'm afraid that I can't concur that The Australian should be considered "not reliable" for its news coverage on this topic - the news article discussed in the link and the academic study which is the subject of that article are in broad agreement; at worst there is some burying of the lede - and, in any case, it is not indicative of a wider lack of reliability. Neither is a suggestion that The Australian has an unhealthy editorial focus on this topic a compelling reason to doubt reliability of its news content. The Australian appears to be a well-established, mainstream broadsheet newspaper, in alignment with WP:NEWSORG, and therefore should be presumed reliable for statements of fact - challenges to this would best be made at WP:RSN.
Based on the information in the sources provided, I'm also not convinced that the view is sufficiently "fringe" as to be excluded from the article or the lead; there appears to be sufficient verification, from multiple sources, that concerns persist in sectors of the community, and that they are reflected in statements made by, for example, members of parliaments, prominent transgender advocates, and ethnicity based community organisations. Post review issues is a significant section of this article, and should be included in the lead. I do, however, share concerns as to the vagueness of the current sentence, and would encourage an increase in specificity. The remainder of the comment above appears to be firmly on the wrong side of WP:FORUM. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

__________________

However reservations remain in relation to this program[8] This statement is true, only if, there are remaining reservations about this program.

Summarising, editor-positions:

• There are no reservations in relation to this program Shiftchange

__________________

• There are reservations in relation to this program B20097
• There are reservations in relation to this program Spacecowboy420
• There are reservations in relation to this program The Drover's Wife

• add to the above the questions raised by Ryk72

That is a consensus - that the statement, However reservations remain in relation to this program[8] be retained. B20097 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is that we don't tease the reader in the lead. We certainly don't add vague statements which could be said about many things. Its like having a statement "Some people do not approve of the Queen" in the lead or "some people have reservations about the ALP". Weirdness. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I said no such thing: as Shiftchange just pointed out, that's a ludicrous sentence to put in a lede. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife. Are you saying - There are no reservations in relation to this program ??

Irrespective of anyone's personal views as to how they believe a Lead should be structured: Wikipedia says, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Further Wikipedia says here, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

Considering (1) the many issues contained within the article, along with (2) new controversies being raised almost every day (reported by RSs - not only 'The Australian') and that there is (3) in NSW an investigation currently underway into this gender / sexuality material with the program being (4) debated by the NSW Parliament - it is difficult to deny that there are notable reservations / controversies in relation to this program. B20097 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for claims that the NSW Parliament has fringe views, isn't notable and only represents the christian right. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)