Talk:GLSEN

Controversy
I have deleted the line "Children as young as 12 and 13 were also reportedly in attendance" from the controversy section as it is not verified by the source and has been denied by conference organizers. I also deleted the line "Despite the controversy that erupted over this event, GLSEN has continued to offer similar workshops for students" as the source provided gave no evidence that any sexually explicit workshops have been presented by GLSEN since the original event.Viciouslies 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that a "controversy" should not be included with no citations. Otherwise, it is simply heresay. Kuki ni 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to work together to ensure that NPOV status is secure in this article. Kuki ni 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some quick searching shows that this account is innacurate -- for instance, the title of the panel mentioned in the writeup is wrong. --Larrybob 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, with a national organization with many chapters, devoting such a substantial portion of the article to a "controversy" that happened at one particular conference seems to throw the emphasis of the article off.--Larrybob 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyways, I read a weird article that claimed that the organization was literally promoting homosexuality among children. ADM (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall reading an article a while back which noted that the graphic descriptions of certain sexual activities (in the talk that critics of GLSEN refer to as "fistgate") were part of a response to a specific question asked by one of the teens present. Neither of the sources given right now mentions that, and I do not recall the source which does. It seems like a rather important part - as it stands, it sounds like the speakers were the ones to raise the subject, and that it was central to the presentation, when it that's not the case at all. They were just giving an honest answer to a question asked by an attendee. If anyone has a source with a better explanation of what really happened - I don't have one on hand, and my memory is a little fuzzy on the specifics - that would be a good addition to put the controversial talk into context. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Usefulness of the chapter list
It it really useful to have a list of all the chapters? It's just a list, there's no additional information, and really doesn't seem to be very useful. eaolson 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

History
I think that the history seems somewhat biased in the organizations favor, but shoudln't it be more nuetral? 69.92.50.50 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
There is currently an edit war going on regarding this section. I believe that the sources I used meet Wikipedia reliability guidelines. The fact that some users may not like those sources is not a reason to revert the material. I am restoring the material and will seek mediation if it is reverted a seventh time. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not terribly involved here but the history comments of "Tony877" seems to evidence something not right:
 * 20:55, 6 September 2009 Tony877 (talk | contribs) (5,548 bytes) (Undid revision 312245126 by Schrandit (talk) i'm not stopping. period.)
 * 00:05, 6 September 2009 Tony877 (talk | contribs) m (5,548 bytes) (Undid revision 312089644 by Schrandit (talk) find reliable sources. i'm not going to stop removing this until then.)
 * 19:16, 4 September 2009 Tony877 (talk | contribs) m (5,548 bytes) (Undid revision 311860639 by 208.105.149.80 (talk) christian news sites are not reliable sources for this article)
 * Seems some of these comments either violate Wiki policy or evidence a violation(s) of Wiki policy. It is definitely disruptive editing.  So disruptive, I have decided not to get much further involved at this time, let alone your need to write about disruptive editing here, though not in so many words.
 * It is possible, based on statements of the disruptor, that some sort of action is needed. Good luck with the mediation.  Maybe I'll edit again when the war is over. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed
As with the global conflicts over gay rights, so have tensions arisen with reactions to gay organizations, often from conservative religious groups. In some cases, a “Day of Silence” promoting awareness may be followed by a “Day of Truth” to promote conservative religious values, so GLSEN helped publish a guide to reduce conflicts in public schools. In Massachusetts, some parents have rallied against what they have called the homosexual agenda and inappropriate materials. In 2000 the Massachusetts Department of Education investigated complaints over frank discussions of sexuality with students as young as 14. The remarks were recored by a parent at a GLESEN conference with the title What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class: Workshop for Youth Only, Ages 14-21

Moving through this -
 * As with the global conflicts over gay rights, so have tensions arisen with reactions to gay organizations, often from conservative religious groups. That is not a controversy but may be useful on some other article about LGBT culture in general.
 * In some cases, a “Day of Silence” promoting awareness may be followed by a “Day of Truth” to promote conservative religious values, so GLSEN helped publish a guide to reduce conflicts in public schools. This is also not controversial and likely should be sent to Day of Silence instead.
 * In Massachusetts, some parents have rallied against what they have called the "homosexual agenda" and inappropriate materials. Vague and seemingly soapbox, if there is some actual point it may be helpful at homosexual agenda.
 * In 2000 the Massachusetts Department of Education investigated complaints over frank discussions of sexuality with students as young as 14. The remarks were recored by a parent at a GLESEN conference with the title "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class: Workshop for Youth Only, Ages 14-21". First off, only the Boston Herald seems to cover this in a more than passing mention. Education Week not only gets the facts wrong but otherwise doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We also seem to omit the obvious follow up of what if anything happened as a result of the inquiries. The overall conference was sponsored by GLSEN but there is no evidence they encouraged, condoned or sponsored this specific workshop or the apparently frank discussions that evidently were prompted by those teens in attendance. If we have evidence there was any editorial control by GLSEN it would likely show they favored a conservative approach instead referring students to resources they could check out on their own. The two Department of Education staffers who participated are coordinators of the Department of Education's HIV/AIDS program. And why is this all an issue? "Our stance is that the Department of Education has no business at all presenting homosexuality in the public schools," Kamenker said. "It is a very self-destructive lifestyle." -- Banj e  b oi   00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You might have some nits to pick, but does that justify wholesale deletion of an entire, carefully and reliably sourced section on people who object to the organization, and the most widely publicized incident? Of course Education Week is a reliable source. NPOV states that all sides of a controversy from notable sources should be included. This action basically shuts down any point of view not favorable to GLSEN, which certainly violates the spirit of NPOV. Leaving it out of here will drive people to conservapedia which is considerably less dedicated to a neutral point of view. Bachcell (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC) My problem with arguments such as this is that the net results of all the little complaints is that there is no mention of any of the issues. I would be happier if the real motiviation is to improve the coverage of the "conflicts" that the GLSEN document itself talks about, or to put the much cited Tufts seminar into perspective, as that event indeed seems to be an anomaly that keeps getting dug up even though it was nearly a decade ago. People will keep coming back here to see what the fuss was all about. As it is, it will look like the event keeps getting scrubbed and nobody wants to admit it ever happened, and it will look like it's biased to favor the organization and omit any voices from its critics.Bachcell (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well sourced, NPOV content is welcome. Generally we don't want any article to have "criticism and controversies" sections. They invite POV writing. Instead weave any notable criticism into the general text. Be advised, doing a quick look at the hundreds of sources available shows they are pretty well regarded so the article in total should reflect criticism with due weight. If an overwhelming majority of sources are positive about the group the article should reflect that. -- Banj e  b oi   08:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the most watched news network in the nation is a poor source? - Schrandit (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If your comment is about the FOX News article, it really doesn't support anything claimed in the cited text, other than the title of the workshop. eaolson (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fistgate controversy
I was patrolling page changes when I came upon an editor who blanked a section of the article. I am assuming that those who maintain this article know what is best, but when I see a large amount of content being blanked, I automatically see it as an nonconstructive edit or at worst, vandalism. I revert edits when there is a large amount of content removed. I won't do it again, but this section that keeps coming and going probably needs some stability and consensus. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017032241/http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year to http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011074318/http://www.thinkb4youspeak.com/TheCampaign/ to http://thinkb4youspeak.com/TheCampaign/
 * Added tag to http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&id=63595

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GLSEN is an Education Lobbying & Political Organization
'''GLSEN is an Education Lobbying & Political Organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoAHabesha (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

" Next edit → GLSEN (edit) Revision as of 22:01, 31 July 2019 269 BYTES ADDED, 1 DAY AGO Undid revision 907885812 by -sche (talk) the additional of that terminology is not undue, it is the terminology used in the study of Political Science and Public Policy which also covers Glsen main goals and operations. }} GLSEN (formerly the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) is a United States-based education organization and special interest lobby working to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as well as to prompt LGBT cultural inclusion and awareness in K-12 schools. "
 * name = GLSEN
 * image = GLSENlogoJPEG.jpg
 * type = LGBTSpecial Youth Awareness Campaign &Interest Education Lobbying Institution for LGBT Youth Awareness
 * founded_date = 1990
 * leader_title = Executive Director

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - GLSEN is a registered lobbying organization and this article ignores that or at least makes light of it. I have a soures that clearly states that (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000051210&year=2017 ). Open Secrets is a reliable (apolitical/impartial) data source that we Policy and Political Scientists use for campaign finance and lobbying contributions research. HoAHabesha (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your source does not describe them as a "lobbying organization", merely shows that they spent some money on lobbying, which many organizations do. The same source will show that ExxonMobil has spent $7 million on lobbying this year, many times the $10,000 listed for GLSEN, but we still describe them as an oil and gas company. Glsen brings in about $8 mill per year, so clearly most of the money goes to other things. Your edits lack a reliable source for the claim that is being made, though there may well be source for a section on lobbying efforts within what the group does. I am again reverting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

GLSEN is an LGBT special interest lobbying organization
Undid revision 929076396 by NatGertler (talk) POV/vandalism — GLSEN is an LGBT special interest lobbying organization, I have cited the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics’s Open Secrets’ Campaign and Special Interest Lobbying Finance. This is a trusted sources on Political Finance and Lobbying in the Political Science field.
 * See response in section above, and join in on conversation and try to achieve consensus, rather than trying to edit war in your changes.-Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000051210 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2019&id=J7300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.182.36 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)