Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act/Archive 3

RfC on who refers to the law as "don't say gay"
A: "commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" Bill or Act" (status quo, example )

B: "which critics commonly call the "Don't Say Gay" Bill or Act" (example )

Adoring nanny (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * B per WP:BESTSOURCE. I will add sources below shortly. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A (commonly referred, but "also known as" and other options fit just as well). OP seems to have accidentally copied in a few sources which support B without copying the list provided just above that support A. Fixed now. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A per . ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B zero sources state that supporters refer to the bill as "Don't Say Gay," while numerous sources state that critics refer to it as such. It is disingenuous to claim that it is "commonly referred to as 'Don't Say Gay'" without qualifying it as a label placed by critics, because the bill never uses the word "gay" a single time, and readers may be misinformed into believing that it is commonly referred to as "Don't Say Gay" because it bans people from saying anything about LGBT people in schools (a categorically false notion, since the bill only restricts lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity themselves, not that you can't say anything about people who are gay, you aren't banned from stating the fact that Alan Turing was gay because that word is supposedly banned). Even the sources that do not specifically state that the law is called "Don't Say Gay" by critics are still quoting critics of the bill who use the term, not a single supporter is quoted in any of these articles as using it. Bill Williams 15:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A per and WP:NPOV. When the majority of reliable sources describe this act, without the proposed qualifier "which critics commonly call the", the NPOV policy compels us to do the same. To add the proposed qualifier would be to give undue weight in a manner that reliable sources covering the act and its aftermath do not do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A. Numerous high-quality sources say that it is commonly referred to that way without qualification, so clearly the argument that WP:BESTSOURCE would push us to qualify it is wrong; furthermore, saying "critics" carries the implication that only critics use that term, which isn't supported by the overall sourcing. Merely saying that it is sometimes called by that name without specifying by who, on the other hand, has no particular implications and therefore accurately and neutrally summarizes all the sources. In particular, it's important to recognize that not everyone is a supporter or a critic (clearly a false binary); the most reasonable way to read overall thrust of high-quality sources is that many critics use the term but that it has also come to be used by many neutral or indifferent observers, making it an inaccurate summary of usage to imply that it is only used by critics. Finally, though this is obvious, arguments based on editors' personal feelings about which term for the bill is more accurate are WP:OR and not relevant - we're summarizing what terms the bill is known by according to the available sources, not evaluating which one is best ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Either one works. While it's important to note that the opposition to the bill coined the term in the first place, the name has become so common. It depends on whether we want to highlight who came up with the nickname in the lead or not, and either one works for me tbh. Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 22:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A. While I agree with @InvadingInvader that either one will work, I believe that Option A is the best option. Even though no supporters use the name, it has become the common name for the law. Therefore, in my opinion, the common name should not be reduced to a simple critical name. AEagleLionThing (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning B per WP:BESTSOURCES, but I think either works. It should be noted that both characterizations are grounded in reliable sourcing. However, I have noticed a bit a tendency of the less credible and biased sourcing (Mother Jones, Vogue, Newsweek) to use also known as. Then I look at the the other and see several New York Times and Washington Post type of articles. Then there is cross over where the same sources will use both terms depending on the article. This reads to me as one is just more specified than another, and I see no reason as to why we shouldn't being using the more specified one. Also, using some common sense here, I don't believe supporters of this bill are referring to it as the "Don't Say Gay bill."  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . I just added more sources, including two AP and two NYT sources that do not limit the term to "critics" or "opponents". "Don't Say Gay" is the most commonly used name for this bill in news media. I'm getting 16,400 results for ("don't say gay" florida) and 4,370 for ("parental rights in education" florida). I'm not married to "commonly" and I'd be fine with just "also known as", but I don't think it's accurate to say that the BESTSOURCES favor one option over the other. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B. Scores of reliable sources, including those of which exhibit bias against conservatives such as ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, acknowledge that this bill's nickname is used exclusively by its opponents. I believe that saying it is "commonly referred to" as such is misleading in that it implies supporters of the bill also refer to it by that name, which in suggests that it's truly representative of the bill's function. As has been previously pointed out, no reliable source suggests the nickname is used by the bill's supporters, and so I think it should not be implied it is. Oktayey (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B. Per the below sources, it is clear that both opinions are valid. The reason I vote B is because it is an objective truth, while A isn't objectively true. There might be an argument that B is a fringe opinion, but the below sources show, at the very least, a very strong minority for B. Cessaune   [ talk ]   16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B, after going back and forth on this over the past 2 weeks. I use "Don't Say Gay" and consider it accurate, but the sources support B more than A. I've added some recent sources, including an academic source, which should dispel the notion that the "critic" framing was recentism. I have no idea why sources that say "so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill" are being used to support A, since they implicitly frames it as a contentious term, and that's not something news sources often do. But beyond looking at passing mentions, one source did substantively consider the argument: NBC News quotes a pro-trans university professor, who says The ‘Don’t Say Gay’ moniker is a moniker about a certain political framing of this situation, and compares it to the "CRT" moniker used by conservatives, clearly presenting it as a term used by critics. DFlhb (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Either based on what I could find in the sources. There is some evidence that the nickname is used critically but there is also evidence that it is used neutrally to describe legislation that prohibits specific types of speech around LGBT issues. If you were to insist on my opinion I would lean towards the broader definition which is A. Jorahm (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A based on the RS provided below this is a commonly used name. Rab V (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Either work. It is technically true that both are true statements, but adding 'critics' is more precise as to it is being called "Don't Say Gay". We have a general tendency to attribute these things, and would be in line with that reasoning. SWinxy (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B. It's pretty clearly the case, that is, accurate. WP: commonsense applies. Arguments for A above mostly look like "verify, not truth", but that is both depreciated and stupid for an encyclopedia. That said, "also known as" isn't terrible. 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".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.147.164 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B. I don't think this really makes sense as a dispute over WP:BESTSOURCES; it seems that this is a style/WP:IMPARTIAL issue. (In any event, I think it comes out as a wash under WP:BESTSOURCES). I'm in favor of option B because the term "Don't Say Gay" implies a point of view, and option B accurately ascribes that POV to the correct group of people. To note, I disagree with the argument that option A is unclear as to who calls it "Don't Say Gay"; I think it's quite clear that a supporter of the law would not be likely to call it that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * B. I would prefer something like “which critics and many others commonly call the ‘don’t say gay bill’”.  However, that’s not one of the two choices here.  So I would go with option “B” because it’s clearly true (critics do commonly call it that) whereas I’m not convinced the sources show that non-critics commonly call it that.  I think many non-critics view “don’t say gay” as somewhat disparaging and misleading, which is why they don’t commonly use it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * B. This name came from critics, implies POV and it should be framed that way. - Nemov (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A; based on the sources provided below it has become the common name for the law. -sche (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A. The sources clearly show that far more than just critics refer to the bill as "Don't Say Gay". I hit every news source that I trust, and could not find a single one that referred to the bill as the "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act" except parenthetically. Conversely, "Don't Say Gay" usually appears in the first paragraph. If we went by WP:COMMONNAME, it would be the article's title! I honestly have trouble understanding the controversy here. Certainly the critics "came up with" the sobriquet, but critics also nicknamed the Intolerable Acts, the Golden Horde and the Mormon Extermination Order. Can you seriously point me to a reliable, non-primary source that does not mention "Don't Say Gay"? Last1in (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Narrowly A/Status Quo. First, I do want to explain why I disagree with many of the contentions offered in support of B. As I see it, the first (not only) question is whether the bill is commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill or if only critics use the term. Viewed as such, it's not really "more precise" to say that critics use the term—if the term is commonly used (by a group larger than just the critics), then it's actually more precise to say as much. Similarly, neither statement is more or less "objective" than the other. Finally, the question is not "do supporters use the term 'don't say gay bill'?" The world is not actually divided into supporters and opponents of the bill. If, for example, people who are undecided on the bill or media sources covering the bill use the shorthand, then that's enough for "commonly referred to as".I think the harder question is whether an NPOV issue emerges given that supporters strongly object to the moniker as inaccurate (a fact not mentioned in the lede) and that the nickname emerged from opponents of the bill. It'd probably be too long, but I almost wish we could say, "commonly, over the objection of supporters, referred to as". If the circumstances were flipped and "Anti-Grooming Bill" had captured the common usage, I think most users would probably want some kind of disclaimer. If I were writing the article from scratch, I would probably say "critics". But I don't think there's a clear enough reason to switch from the status quo.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion ("critics" in the lead)
WP:BESTSOURCE says to try to go with the best sources. It does not say to go with the side that digs up the largest number of sources. To the extent that the A side is digging up sources like NewsWeek (not particularly reliable per WP:NEWSWEEK), Mother Jones (biased per WP:MOTHERJONES, and local news, that tends to prove my point. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "cites newsweek, so ignore the rest"? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Every article that does not state that the term is utilized by critics is still quoting critics of the bill throughout the article, the only people who actually refer to the bill as "Don't Say Gay" are critics of the bill. It's also highly misleading to readers to pretend like it is some kind of neutral moniker for the bill when it promotes the false notion that saying anything about gay people is now banned in Florida schools, even though the only thing that is actually banned is lessons on sexual orientation or gender identity in and of themselves, schools are still allowed to mention the fact that a notable person belonged to a specific sexual orientation or gender identity. Bill Williams 15:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * History is full of examples where mainstream opinion, including mainstream press, wind up characterizing something in a way supporters consider objectionable or which is indeed critical. That doesn't change the fact that that's how it's commonly known. NPOV means following how reliable sources characterize something, not filtering them according to whether supporters [or critics] are ok with how RS characterize it. Every article that uses term like discrimination, -isms, etc. uses that title despite the fact that supporters of such policies/actions disagree that it's discrimination/[X]ism. We use them anyway because that's how reliable sources describe them. To do otherwise would be a failure of WP:NPOV (and probably WP:NOR). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not that "supporters consider objectionable or which is indeed critical," the label "Don't Say Gay" by critics of the bill is simple false. It is not a NPOV to mislead readers into thinking the bill bans any mention of the word "gay" or anything relating to LGBT issues or people, because that is not what the bill actually does and no reliable source claims that the bill actually does this. The bill has an actual name, while "Don't Say Gay" is just a made-up name by critics that no supporters use to refer to the bill. I think it is beneficial for readers to know that the term "Don't Say Gay" is how critics refer to the bill and not an accurate description of it, considering this term leads many people to believe that much more is banned by the bill than what actually is. Bill Williams 16:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Affordable Care Act is commonly referred to as Obamacare by both critics and supporters of it as it has both positive and negative connotations depending on the context in which it is being discussed, yet the enacting legislation itself did not contain that term within it. The Good Friday Agreement is known as such because it was signed by Northern Irish politicians on Good Friday 1998, despite the official name of the agreement being the Belfast Agreement and the phrase Good Friday not appearing anywhere within it. Laws and political agreements pick up all manner of colloquial names, even when those names have no basis in the text of their relevant documents.
 * is correct in saying that when the majority of reliable sources describe an act in a specific way, WP:NPOV requires us to do the same. In this circumstance, reliable sources tell us that this act is commonly referred to as the Don't Say Gay bill/act. To insert "which critics commonly call" would be a NPOV violation because the majority of reliable sources do not frame it in that way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "by both critics and supporters" except that isn't the case here like it is with every other example of yours, the term "Don't Say Gay" is used solely by supporters and numerous reliable sources qualify the term with the fact that it is "critics" or "opponents" who labeled it as such. "Obamacare" doesn't mislead readers into thinking that Obama pushed for it, because factually speaking Obama was the person who pushed for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, "Don't Say Gay" misleads readers into thinking that the act actually bans people from speaking on anything related to gay people, when it's just a made up term used by critics of the law. Can you give any other example on Wikipedia of a misleading moniker created by critics that is used in the lead of a Wikipedia article without qualifying that the term was used by critics? Bill Williams 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * However you may characterize the users of the term is immaterial, per WP:FALSEBALANCE; what matters is the balance of the RS. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is definitely true, but a substantial portion of reliable sources (as expressed by the source list) explicitly qualify the term as one used by "critics" or "opponents" so I see no reason why that cannot be included in the lead of the article. All I ask is that the lead state the fact that the bill was "dubbed" as "Don't Say Gay" by opponents, because the verb means to "give an unofficial name or nickname" and that is precisely what critics of the bill did when they created the term "Don't Say Gay." Bill Williams 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assertion that there is unanimous agreement among sources that the bill has been dubbed that name by critics. In fact, the best sources I can find (ie. academic papers on the usage of the term, eg. ) indicate that it is a longstanding way to refer to such bills in academia and is used, there, as a neutral descriptor of the intent and effect of such bills. It's natural that a few news sources (who don't have the time to properly research a term's origin before publication) might slip up and mistakenly say that the term was invented for this one bill by its opponents, but that isn't what the WP:BESTSOURCES say; it's part of the reason why per WP:RECENTISM we should be cautious about relying on breaking-news reports for subtle details like this. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't just my assertion that the bill was dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by critics, it's a simple fact. Who else dubbed the bill "Don't Say Gay"? A supporter of the bill? Every single source that states who dubbed the bill says that it was "critics" or "opponents," not "political scientists" or whoever you're claiming, and you've presented no evidence that anyone else dubbed this specific bill as "Don't Say Gay." Additionally, it isn't a "neutral descriptor of the intent and effect" because zero sources present any evidence that the bill intends to or has the effect of banning people from saying "gay". You can still mention that historical figures were gay and doing so is not in opposition to the bill, mentioning that a person is gay is not a lesson on gender identity or sexual orientation, and no legal expert claims that the bill literally bans you from saying the word gay. "Don't Say Gay" belongs in the lead because it is a common term for the bill, but it a fact that the bill was dubbed this by critics, and that context belongs in the lead for readers. Bill Williams 12:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unanimous? "All or nothing" argumentation is usually faulty. This is irrelevant anyway. Plenty of RS verify that it's a largely critically used term. If you want to give a "verify, not truth" argument (which is a depreciated policy, by the way), then be consistent and simply allow the statement "critically dubbed/used DSG" to be in the article and sourced. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or WP:commonsense and let it go. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Affordable Care Act is commonly referred to as Obamacare Nuance: critics and supporters both happily use that term, for diametrically opposite reasons; not quite comparable. DFlhb (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are some milk toast examples. Not very similar at all. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we're arguing over the wrong thing. It's not about who created the "Don't Say Gay" sobriquet, but how it is used in reliable sources. An editor posted {I lost count at fifty} eminent sources that mention "Don't Say Gay". Can anyone show a similar number sources that don't mention that moniker, at least in passing? How about... one or two? No? Exactly. If you ask a dozen arch-conservatives (or arch-liberals) about the "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act", you'll get a lot of blank stares. Ask proponents or critics about the "Don't Say Gay" bill, though, and you'll get plenty of reactions. How about a little WP:COMMONNAME, folks? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The label is inaccurate and politically charged, and numerous reliably sources qualify "Don't Say Gay" every time they mention it as a label placed on the Parental Rights in Education Act by the law's critics. It is necessary for the context to exist in the lead of the article that the label was placed on the law by critics instead of implying that it is some sort of accurate term to describe the law with. Whether or not you oppose the law, it does not literally ban people from saying the word gay, but some people unironically believe that because they think the law is was called "Don't Say Gay" by its supporters, when in fact that is not the case. Bill Williams 14:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Withdrew closure per requests from Rhododendrtites and Sideswipe9th.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note, request for closure made at Closure requests. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing to note if there is no consensus for either side, on April 13, 2022 when the article was created by InvadingInvader it included the words "commonly known by critics as the Don't Say Gay Bill" in the opening sentence, and various synonyms of "critics" were consistently included in the lead of the article for nearly an entire year until January 12, 2023, when the word was removed from the opening sentence by PoliticalPoint . Following the removal, various editors continued to add back synonyms of "critics" every few days or weeks while other editors continued to remove it up until this RfC, hence the longstanding wording of the article has always included some qualifying statement that the bill was labeled "Don't Say Gay" by its opponents. Bill Williams 15:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here from closure request. While I would probably close the discussion as no consensus, I've decided instead to involve myself: I think a phrasing such as "also known as" is probably best here, as it encompasses the fact that a broader group than just "critics" call it that, while also noting that that group isn't the almost everyone that "common" implies. casualdejekyll  00:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In the intro, in the part that says “about sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade”, please ad in parenthesis “which he since been expanded to all grades through https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/florida-bans-teaching-gender-identity-sexual-orientation/index.html 2600:100C:A202:5967:D413:B23A:CEB:E2C (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably doesn't belong in the very start of the lead that discusses the law itself, but I will add something after "and Florida legislators have introduced bills expanding the scope of the law" to clarify that the Florida Department of Education has created new guidelines effectively banning it through 12th grade. Bill Williams 15:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Restrict LGBT Rights" and "Harms LGBT Children"
Can you explain to me how it is "pretty uncontroversial" to claim this about the bill? That's an absurd violation of NPOV with zero reliable sources stating that this is a common view of the bill, it's a completely one sided perspective. What "right" is restricted by banning classroom instruction on gender identity or sexuality? Nobody is currently taught that in Florida school, so I'd love to hear how that "harms" anyone when at the time of passage it changed absolutely nothing. Bill Williams 22:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only reason for opposing the bill is the belief that those topics should be taught in schools, but there's zero evidence they were being taught anywhere to anyone, and no evidence has surfaced of a single person being "harmed" by the law, unless you can provide me with even one reliable source stating so. Bill Williams 22:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least they are supposed to chill even the possibility of LGBT topics being discussed. Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * there's zero evidence they were being taught anywhere to anyone Have you got a reliable source that asserts this? According to a profile published by SIECUS in May 2021, 43.7% of Floridian secondary schools provided education on sexual orientation between grades 6 to 8, increasing to 63.5% for grades 9 through 12. For education on gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression, it was 42.5% for grades 6 through 8, and 61.7% for grades 9 through 12. Additionally this statement by the Florida Education Association, along with their guidance on the Don't Say Gay act, certainly imply that age appropriate instruction for both gender identities and sexuality was occurring in Florida prior to the passing and recent expansion of the act. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't even provide a reliable source for anything, so I'm going to restore the NPOV wording of the article. All you did was show that schools provide sex ed, which is a well known fact that has nothing to do with this article. Nobody in sex ed is taught what it means to be gay or trans, so the law changes nothing regarding what educators have been teaching for years. All it does it ban the potential education of something no schools currently teach. Furthermore, the Florida DoE literally excludes sex ed classes from the ban on education regarding sexual orientation and gender identity past 3rd grade, and no people before third grade take sex ed classes anyway. Use some actual reliable sources instead of your OR if you want to make wild claims about the law's "harms" that are purely hypothetical and should not be stated as a fact in Wikivoice. Bill Williams 17:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't even provide a reliable source for anything Are you disputing that the SIECUS profile on sex education in Florida prior to the passing of this bill and the later amendments is a reliable source?
 * Nobody in sex ed is taught what it means to be gay or trans That is not what you asked for proof of. You asked for proof that there was evidence that topics relating to sexual orientation, and gender identity were being taught in Floridian schools prior to the passing of this act. The SIECUS profile proves that a majority of high schools taught about both sexual orientation and gender identity from grades 9 through 12, and a minority of high schools taught about it from grades 6 through 8.
 * Furthermore, the Florida DoE literally excludes sex ed classes from the ban on education regarding sexual orientation and gender identity past 3rd grade Yes, but only came into effect in April 2023. Prior to this, and prior to the passing of this act there was no restrictions on what could be taught in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity in schools in Florida. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand what you're saying but you're misinterpreting the sourcing. The sexual education did not include anything about "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" because there's no unique things to teach in sex ed about being gay or trans. Protection from STDs is necessary for everyone, and having an artificial penis or vagina doesn't change the fact that you still need protection. There are no special diseases for gay or trans people, contrary to what some South African presidents may have believed. Can you provide an actual quote specifically stating that "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" used to be discussed in Florida sex ed classes, but was then banned afterwards? The law did not apply to anything past 3rd grade until the Florida DoE recently determined that it applied to K-12, but they specifically excluded sex ed. So I need you to provide a source for any evidence that any sex ed classes were altered due to the law. Bill Williams 18:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I read through the entire SIECUS article and not once did it state that Florida schools currently or previously taught about "sexual orientation" or "gender identity," the only thing the article stated is that they should for various reasons. Bill Williams 18:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the source, particularly the content after the paragraph that begins In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the School Health Profiles, which measure school health policies and practices and highlight which health topics were taught in schools across the country. The percentage breakdown in topics that follows that paragraph are all about topics that were taught in sexual education classes in Florida, prior to the passing of this legislation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a source for Florida schools teaching about "gender identity" or "sexual orientation" because the percentage of Florida schools that you are quoting is all of those teaching about "gender roles" and "gender expression" not just "gender identity" while the portion about "sexual orientation" could mean that they teach about how to have safe sex if you're gay, but you have yet to provide any evidence that education regarding this has changed whatsoever. The law only applied to K-3, which doesn't have sex ed, until April 2023 when it was extended to applying to K-12 but excluded sex ed. Please provide a single source showing any changes to sex ed after the passage of the law, because you still have yet to prove any harm, much less show that believing harm is caused is an "uncontroversial" viewpoint. Bill Williams 18:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that this source doesn't meet your criteria to support what it says it does, with various justifications for why the different points aren't acceptable. Perhaps it would be simpler if you state clearly what exactly it is you are looking for?
 * I also would like to point out that, despite your repeated assertions that neither sexual orientation nor gender identity was taught in Florida's schools prior to the passing of this act, you have yet to provide a reliable source that supports this. If this is the case, and the bill would have no meaningful effect on the school curricula, that surely would be an easy thing to prove? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you saying? I have to provide a source to state that something ISNT taught? You're the one claiming that it is universally accepted that the bill harms LGBT people, meanwhile I'm saying the bill banned something that wasn't even taught. You have yet to provide a single source that claims anything about "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" was or is taught in a single Florida school, except for in sex ed, which this bill doesn't apply to because nobody in K-3 is taught sex ed. Meanwhile the Florida DoE extended the bill in April 2023 to apply to K-12 but EXCLUDED sex ed from being banned from teaching about the topics, therefore none of what you are claiming is relevant to the bill at all. The only supposed harm you have presented is that sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in some sex ed classes, which has not changed under the bill or the new guidelines. Bill Williams 21:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you've misread the text. The text says 321 major businesses oppose the act and other similar acts (emphasis mine). Florida's Don't Say Gay act was the first of many anti-trans bills proposed and subsequently passed by state legislatures across the US. The source for this paragraph is in response to not only the Florida act, but also bills like:
 * The recently passed Florida Senate bill 254, which has resulted in a de facto ban on gender affirming care for both trans youth and trans adults in the state. The effect of this bill has resulted in restrictions of the rights of trans and non-binary people to receive healthcare.
 * Florida House bill 1521 which has the effect of criminalising trans people who use the bathrooms and locker rooms in government owned and operated buildings that correspond to their gender identity, as a trespassing offence.
 * It should be pretty uncontroversial to state that criminalising trans people for using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, and that forcibly medically detransitioning trans and non-binary people by removing their access to healthcare is a restriction on their rights and is harmful.
 * As for the harms of this specific act, the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law has a pretty succinct summary on the harms. In summary however, the stigma associated with the legislation results in measurable increases of bullying, discrimination, and suicide rates of LGBT+ youth. Healthline's and The Guardian's articles on this specific act also indirectly support what the Georgetown Journal have published. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "criminalising trans people for using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity" irrelevant to this law, " forcibly medically detransitioning trans and non-binary people by removing their access to healthcare" irrelevant to this law, neither belong in the article and it's just a POV push to try and talk about them here. " stigma associated with the legislation results in measurable increases of bullying, discrimination, and suicide rates of LGBT+ youth" you have provided zero evidence with this, I read what you said and all it did was talk about hypothetical harms with zero evidence of any existing, claiming it "could" cause X Y Z that are all unrelated to the law. Your original research on random individual sources claiming potential harms does not make it a definitive fact in Wikivoice to claim that the law "harms LGBT" in any way, the article should simply state that this is the view of the businesses. Bill Williams 17:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * irrelevant to this law Yes, but also no. The source we're citing is talking about the harms this type of law causes. Not specifically the harm that this law causes. The problem here is that the text that you changed changes the meaning of the source. We cannot do that.
 * you have provided zero evidence with this While you may disagree with it, the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Healthline, and Guardian articles all directly support the fact that this law stigmatises LGBT+ youth. And that stigmatisation has a known effect on the mental and physical of the same youth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying your sources can't be included at all, I'm stating it's not an "uncontroversial" view as you claim that the law "harms LGBT" people, hence we cannot state in Wikivoice that the law harms them, because it's a disputed claim made by the business that should be qualified as "businesses oppose the law because they view it as harming" not "because it harms" when you have yet to prove that it does. The sources you cited do not prove anything, they solely claim that the law "could" do a bunch of things completely unrelated to its actual provisions. It's been an entire year, and you have yet to provide a single example of where the law actually harmed anyone, rather than sources talking about hypotheticals. Bill Williams 17:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * we cannot state in Wikivoice that the law harms them, because it's a disputed claim made by the business Have you got a source states that it is disputed that laws like this one harm LGBT+ people? Because we know for a fact that previous legislation that stigmatised LGBT+ people, like Don't ask, Don't tell had measurable negative mental health effects on those who were subject to it. Even the debates prior to passing legislation like this have had measurable negative mental health effects on those who will be subject to them. Mental health experts and researchers, like Nathaniel Frank have pointed out the direct parallels between this legislation and historical anti-LGBT+ restrictions like DADT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd violation of Wikipedia policy, promoting your POV through OR. You haven't presented a single source as evidence that the law harms LGBT people, instead you present a random assortment of other legislation which you claim your research shows were harmful. You are not a source, and unless you have a reliable source claiming this legislation is exactly the same as the others, you've presented zero proof of harm. In reality it is nothing like anything that you just presented, all it did was ban something that was not even taught in Florida schools and you need to present some actual evidence of how that will somehow harm children. Bill Williams 21:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that explictly disputes this: "Liberal activists are claiming that the parental rights bill would harm kids. Nonsense. It would protect young kids from what is, in effect, sexual grooming." You and I may disagree, but it is preposterous to claim that no one disputes this. Red Slapper (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. And "liberal activists" is an odd moniker to use when describing established scientists, but then again reality has a well known liberal bias, so stranger things may happen. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are a reliable source for their opinions, which dispute the claim you said was indisputable. You simply cannot state that in wikipedia's voice. Red Slapper (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation's opinions on scientific and public health topics, like the mental health of LGBT+ people, are largely irrelevant. The only sources that would support there being a dispute in the known effects bills like this one have on the physical and mental health of LGBT+ individuals would be those published in peer-reviewed journals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide which groups' opinions are relevant to this question. There are no "known effects" of this bill, in peer reviewed journals or otherwise - only speculation as to what might happen as a result of it in the future, based on some other bills, related to a different demographic. Red Slapper (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That argument sure looks like WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, you are relying on your own judgment on what is "bill like this". Adoring nanny (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's SYNTH if a subject-matter expert, Nathaniel Frank also linked above, has explicitly made the link between this act and DADT. Also no, I'm not relying on my own judgement for what qualifies as a "bill like this". Again, that's what subject-matter experts like Frank are saying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can quote subject-matter expert Nathaniel Frank as to his opinion on what this bill will do, but we can't use that opinion to state as fact that some future event will happen. Red Slapper (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that both of you slow down and give other parties a chance to contribute. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but Red Slapper is correct that these two editors are not following NPOV guidelines or properly sourcing doing some heavy POV pushing . They claim that it's uncontroversial to say the bill harms LGBT children, but fail to present any evidence that it does, instead they collected a variety of irrelevant sources that never show how this specific bill harms children. Furthermore, Red Slapper's mention of Heritage Foundation is completely valid, they are not utilizing it as a source of facts but instead showing how it is controversial to claim the bill harms LGBT children because people who have views similar to the Heritage Foundation dispute these assertions. This isn't like climate change or something else that is factually proven, so it would be absurd to state in Wikivoice that "the bill harms LGBT children" when there is not widespread agreement amongst reliable sources that this is true. Bill Williams 21:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sideswipe9th, I agree with Adoring Nanny with one small addition: Please don't feed the culture warriors. They have the time to engage in endless Gish gallops that are painful to read, and your responses are just serve to prove Brandolini's law. Having tried in the past, I can attest that their tactics are as exhausting as they are effective -- by dragging you into this discussion, they keep you from correcting their relentless drive to push their POV into this and a hundred other articles. Keep working to improve Wikipedia, but only with direct quotes from well-sourced materials. If they continue to revert them, there are Wikipedia rules to kerb that behaviour. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Map of States
I think it is extremely misleading to include laws banning education on sexual orientation and gender identity in the same map as states that ban discrimination against LGBT people as if to pretend like the two juxtapose. They're completely different laws, one on discrimination and one on course curriculum, and it's absurd to paint the states that do one as better than the states that do the other, which is precisely the purpose of the map. Bill Williams 22:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You claimed that "Banning education on how gender identity and sexual orientation variations are a natural part of the human condition is by definition discriminatory against LGBT+ children, adults, and non-LGBT+ children with LGBT+ parents and guardians" yet you have zero sources to back this up, especially because most states don't even "educate on how gender identity and sexual orientation variations are a natural part of the human condition" in the first place so then how is banning something that isn't taught discrimination? Nobody is taught what it means to be straight or cisgender either, the law makes zero difference in its effect on gay, straight, transgender or transgender topics. Bill Williams 22:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, banning education on how gender identity and sexual orientation variations are a natural part of the human condition is by definition discriminatory against LGBT+ children, adults, and non-LGBT+ children with LGBT+ parents and guardians. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, one of them is anti-discrimination and one of them is pro-discrimination, makes sense to me? casualdejekyll  22:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide actual sources on how exactly the law is "pro-discrimination" and juxtaposes with laws banning discrimination against LGBT children. How is it discrimination to ban the teaching of a topic that wasn't taught, and applies to sexual topics relating to both gay and straight, cisgender and transgnder the same way? Sexual content cannot be taught outside of reproductive classes, whether it's LGBT or not. Bill Williams 02:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You still haven't provided a source that it wasn't taught in the schools prior to the passing of the act. If this is true, then surely one media source that we consider reliable would have said this at some point during their coverage.
 * There's a multitude of ways that such a fact could be spun, by those sourced who are either opposed to or supportive of the act. For example a media source that's supportive of the act could have put out an analysis stating that the act would have no meaningful effect on the curriculum, as it wasn't being taught before so nothing changes after it's enacted. Whereas a source that opposes it could point out that this act prevents such a curriculum from being developed, despite other states in the US and other countries across the world having the same sort age appropriate education on sexual orientation and gender identity without issue. Surely, if this wasn't taught in Florida schools prior to the act passing there would be a source discussing the act along those lines? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have the burden of proof of providing a source that actually states it was taught in Florida schools, and you still have not shown that it was. All you did is show that sex ed is taught in Florida schools, which hasn't changed under the law. Provide some reliable sources that it is actually taught in Florida schools outside of sex ed classes, which the law and the Florida Board of Education haven't altered. You're just talking about OR that is UNDUE, especially without sources to actually prove how the law "discriminates" against anyone. Bill Williams 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This map is a poor asset, in any article. Its legend states certain things are "State Law", and then has different counties within the same state color-coded differently. The entire map seems to be a piece of original research, and I am removing it. Red Slapper (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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


 * So, first, I saw someone initially reverted the addition because they were thrown by the link—UVA Law has html preview HTML pages for its articles (some schools have full-html versions of articles, but not UVA), but the preview page does feature a link to a pdf of the full article. : I know some users prefer HTML links to PDFs (or at least I've run into that before), so I just wanted to flag that I replaced the html link in the article, in case you'd like to revert (I won't fight you on it!).
 * Second, as to @Adoring nanny's point, having skimmed the article, I think that quotation is a fair representation of the article on the whole? The article, titled "The Promises and Perils of Private Enforcement", lays out a restricted set of circumstances in which private-enforcement regimes are valuable, and it's largely critical of "recent" private-enforcement efforts (among which it includes the Florida act) (see pages 1501-1502, 1541). I also think that it fairly sums up a common concern expressed regarding the law—that it will have a chilling effect on teachers afraid of state power.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Adoring nanny, I've been looking for unimpeachable sources with anything non-pejorative to say since someone made me aware of the POV-pushing on this article. I've had trouble finding solid academic work that isn't excoriating on either the act itself or on similar, previous laws that empowered citizens to censor libraries for social, moral or cultural material. Outside of a few studies done or funded by the extreme right in the US, there just doesn't seem to be anything to find. It's a bit like scouring Western academia in the Seventies for data to support the Cultural Revolution -- there is no 'there', there. It make take some years to be able to say this with any certainty, but this article looks like a poster child for the golden mean fallacy, false balance, or both. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. The quote isn't even about this law specifically, even though the article mentions the Florida law elsewhere, the quote is not referring to it. Bill Williams 19:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are various ways to criticize the law but pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to "healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations" is not relevant criticism for this article, it's just bundling a bunch of different things together to make a vague statement that doesn't benefit readers. What exactly are readers supposed to learn after reading that? Bill Williams 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill. They're supposed to learn that private enforcement legislation, which the law review article explicitly lists the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act as an example of, could have potential consequences on public life. It is certainly referring to the bill when it describes its possible consequences, I'm not sure how you are confused on that. I can see how you may think it is vague, because it lists multiple areas, but the source is arguing that the contentiousness of laws like this can be felt throughout public life. I think you were a bit quick to remove this, especially considering it is the highest quality source that has coverage of the topic. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah I agree with the addition after reading further commentary, I think it is fine to explain the context in relation to other laws and how they affect public life. I do apologize for removing it swiftly. Bill Williams 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only POV pushing was editors attempting to write things in Wikivoice that were not backed up by reliable sources. This is another example, so I'm removing it. As a law review, the Virginia Law Review does meet the criteria established to be a reliable source. As a scholarly source that is published by the University of Virginia School of Law, the VLR represents one of the best available sources for us to base our content upon.
 * In the diffs above from, and the , there is nothing being put into Wikivoice. Everything in that sentence is either attributed to the VLR article, or a direct quotation from it.
 * The quote isn't even about this law specifically Hard disagree. As the provisions section of the article clearly states, the Florida act has private enforcement clauses, as the legislation enables parents to file legal challenges against school teachings they have personal objections to. Where page 1502 in the law review article states laws targeting transgender students it is pretty clear from both the context of the surrounding paragraphs and elsewhere in the article that it is including the Florida act in those plurality of laws. The quotation itself is also obviously related, as it discusses the impact of private enforcement clauses in schools, and the Florida act targets schools for both its education ban and private enforcement clauses.
 * As things stand right now, I see no reason why this content should not be included. I think that has hit the nail on the head here. Among the highest quality sources, it is exceptionally rare to find an article that is not immensely critical of this act nor any other similar acts. Those few sources that do exist tend to have been funded by far-right aligned think tanks and other organisations. Per policy if the sources describe the act in overwhelmingly negative terms, then that must shape how we approach our content such that our content must also be negative. To do otherwise is to introduce false balance at best as we would be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint on the law, and to be non-neutral at worst as we would be engaging in the dispute surrounding the law by not adequately summarising the overwhelming negative reception of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding @Sideswipe9th and @FormalDude here on all points.
 * For context, this is what the article said:
 * I thought that the portion of the text that was in Wikipedia's voice was a fair summary of the article, but, seeing as the "Wikivoice" criticism only applied to that version, I've reinserted the quotation with a briefer summary. (Note: I also moved the content, because the next sentence said "These groups", but an article written by one person isn't a group.) Here's what the text looks like now.
 * "pretending like it's part of a broader sphere of the same laws relating to 'healthcare facilities, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations' is not relevant criticism for this article" ... I think I see what you're saying, but the article did explicitly draw that connection. Frankly, I'm not sure your evaluation of the article is really relevant here. Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple things. I think the new placement is an improvement. I'm sure not how you claim to address fixing the purported wikivoice issue–it wasn't in wikivoice before, and it's still not in it. Everything had been, and still is, attributed. WP:WIKIVOICE means content written as if Wikipedia's saying it. That had never occurred here, I explicitly said who was saying it. The most significant part of your revision is removing "can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse". Why was that taken out? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I'm actually not "in town" at the moment—I'm editing in my car and am about to leave; I came to this article after seeing notifications pop up on my phone, so maybe I'm missing something. The description of the article is in Wikivoice, no? A Virginia Law Review article contended that recent adaptations of private enforcement like this bill can lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse .... In other words, that is Wikipedia's voice describing what was contended in the article (rather than quoting the article). Regardless, I think the non-quoted portion of the article is the only thing @Bill Williams could have been referring to when he made his Wikivoice critique—so, to avoid running afoul of WP:ONUS, I figured I shouldn't re-add that. But if you think the divide portion is critical, would a fair compromise be to add its equiavelent as a quotation? That way we avoid whatever Wikivoice issues Bill Williams has but we still have the content. So:
 * I hope that works! I've added it now, but obviously feel free to revert. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that portion is not in wikivoice. Anything that is paraphrased from an inline-attribution is not in wikivoice. An example of using wikivoice in this article would be "The bill has received widespread backlash from across the United States." or "The most common organizational argument against the Act is that the provisions harm LGBT children within Florida's public schools.". I don't really see the need to quote the whole thing as you've suggested, that would just make for one long quote. The in-text attribution proves Wikipdia isn't saying anything in its own voice. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you're saying! I still think it's most likely that Bill Williams was trying to say that's a bad paraphrase (though I don't know for sure). Unless he clarifies here, I don't want to run afoul of WP:ONUS. I also don't really know if the paraphrase here—which was pretty minor—makes all that big of a difference—I mean likely widen[] cultural and political divides on issues of deep moral disagreement and lead to consequences such as a growing rift in cultural and political spheres regarding matters of profound moral discourse is pretty similar—in fact, the paraphrased version is longer! Still I want to clarify that I'd prefer a paraphrased version, and if no legitimate ground can be found for its omission, I'd support returning it.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your revised edits do a good job of explaining the Virginia article, and I was too hasty to initially remove it instead of editing it myself. I don't have any issue with the content's inclusion at this point. Bill Williams 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any problem with Wikivoice, I was just being overzealous after other editors had previously added things in Wikivoice regarding the bill's impact and stating things like "the bill harms LGBT people" instead of qualifying it as the claims of a specific person or organization. I also was being overzealous in removing the Virginia article as irrelevant because other editors had added a ton of text in the Support section (which I have long since removed) about how X or Y politician supported a bunch of different laws, which the Support section then went on to describe in detail, all of which are extremely vaguely related to this specific article (e.g. some supporters of this article's law also opposed gay marriage, but that's not relevant for this article itself). People weren't using sources that connected this law to these other viewpoints and instead were just bringing in a ton of irrelevant things, but in this case the Virginia source specifically is connecting them so I think it's perfectly fine to mention. Bill Williams 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh fantastic! I know we're all overzealous at times—I sometimes have to fight my personal instinct to double down, so kudos for you for either not having that instinct or being able to overcome it. If you'd like to revert back to the prior version, feel free.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your revised edits do a good job of explaining the Virginia article, and I was too hasty to initially remove it instead of editing it myself. I don't have any issue with the content's inclusion at this point. Bill Williams 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any problem with Wikivoice, I was just being overzealous after other editors had previously added things in Wikivoice regarding the bill's impact and stating things like "the bill harms LGBT people" instead of qualifying it as the claims of a specific person or organization. I also was being overzealous in removing the Virginia article as irrelevant because other editors had added a ton of text in the Support section (which I have long since removed) about how X or Y politician supported a bunch of different laws, which the Support section then went on to describe in detail, all of which are extremely vaguely related to this specific article (e.g. some supporters of this article's law also opposed gay marriage, but that's not relevant for this article itself). People weren't using sources that connected this law to these other viewpoints and instead were just bringing in a ton of irrelevant things, but in this case the Virginia source specifically is connecting them so I think it's perfectly fine to mention. Bill Williams 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh fantastic! I know we're all overzealous at times—I sometimes have to fight my personal instinct to double down, so kudos for you for either not having that instinct or being able to overcome it. If you'd like to revert back to the prior version, feel free.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)