Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia

SSC Contact citation
Re these edits: to this paragraph:


 * The "Contact Us" reference placed immediately after "Safe Schools Coalition Australia" is not helpful - its location suggests that it is supporting the words "Safe Schools Coalition Australia", not the whole sentence. Given that the whole article is Safe Schools Coalition Australia we don't need a reference for those four words here.
 * The edit comment for its restoration by says "that citation ... shows that SSCA has severed its ties with both the Victorian SSC and the ACT SSC", but:
 * The article does say "severed its ties with both the Victorian SSC and the ACT SSC", it says "severed its ties with the SSC Victoria"
 * The reference says "[SSC] Victoria ... is now fully funded by the Victorian Government. [SSC] Victoria no longer receives funding under the Commonwealth Government's contractual arrangements with the Foundation for Young Australians for Safe Schools Coalition Australia." - ie SSC Vic is no longer funded ..., which is not the same as "severed ties with".

The reference in its current location makes no sense, and does not support the sentence anyway. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any response, I've removed the Contact Us inline cite again. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
I've added an NPOV template, as there is a clear conservative bias throughout the page. For instance, I just removed a claim that an academic who is an advocate for the program is also an advocate for pedophilia. It is clear that this article needs a lot more eyes on it to restore and maintain a neutral point of view on the article. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideological labelling.
In the post review issues section, Roz Ward is labelled a socialist in the second paragraph and a Marxist in the third (2 sentences below the second paragraph) as if that matters, and maybe it does given the context of discussion. But if it does, surely it matters that Jeff Kennett is not simply Jeff Kennett, but in fact a very right wing fan of Thatcherism. He not only has a view or opinion on privatisation, he actually was the RIGHT wing Premier of the State of Victoria and his government did privatise much of the the states assets.

Surely that Thatcherist ideology is also relevant to his opinions, and motives if Socialist and Marxist are relevant to Roz Ward. He is far from being centred, or middle ground, he is substantially right wing and not beyond abusing his position. He is very adept at using technicality to his advantage, or just acting then acknowledging he may have been hasty when its too late to stop whatever it is he desired in the first place. He is far from trustworthy or a paragon of integrity. He practices severe political bias, without genuine remorse or shame. In fact he relishes the win, and politics is a dirty game.

If socialist activist and Marxist are relevant, so is the above.

Gary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.58.26 (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Those sorts of labels are inserted pejoratively or at the least are often interpreted pejoratively and seen as inflammatory and inspire such counter-labels. I've removed the article uses of the words socialist/marxist as they and their equivalents provide no additional content understanding. Matter resolved. Timeshift (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In general I couldnt agree more. But in this case removal of the words alone only serves to enhance the effectiveness of that bias. The battle between the minds of Roz Ward and Jeff Kennett are rooted in more than LBGT issues. The article is about LBGT bullying issues for the nations young in schools whether they are politically inclined or not, and the funding is held to ransom by political ideology.

The battle, and labels have some bearing on those sections as Roz has been unfairly targeted by the right, and that is reflected in the authoring of those sections. Its a hatchet job. All that changed is the obviousness of the bias is removed giving more credence as unemotional fact. All major names in that section, except maybe the Chanecellor of La Trobe (Im unfamiliar with his politics), are Liberal Party (Australias right wing party) stalwarts. Who at this moment have vacillated between plebiscite, and now a postal survey to answer the decades old question on Gay Marriage. Their position is heavily influenced by a major chunk of their electoral support, the Christian Right. Roz may be left, she may be out there, but her role in Safe Schools is not her sole role. She has no obligation to restrict her opinions or actions on other hotbed issues within Australian Politics. It has to be said, left as it is, that entire section is riddled with now less obvious bias. Sadly, the bias is now less obvious while the paragraph itself remains highly biased.

Rozs leanings, and the old commie bash is the means to an end. That does not detract from the reverse. An ideology opposed to LBGT issues in all but the most settled sense, is behind the paragraph. The facts alone do not reflect the reality.

In reference to politically linked protagonists in that section... Jeff Kennett was the leader of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, and at one time the Victorian Premier. He was a Thatcherist, and very much conservative. Tony Abbott was leader of the national Liberal Party, in co-coalition government with the National Party, and Prime Minister of Australia. One of his great claims to fame is he is was at Oxford where he studied a religious based program to enter a career in the church. Mr Abbott refused to allow his party a conscience vote on same sex marriage. John Howard, had in his staff when Prime Minister, at least 2 members of the exclusive religious sect, The Brethren and he personally met with its leaders. For a small group that is a significant portion of Mr Howards staff. Moreover, the Brethren made significant donations to get Mr Howard elected. Mr Howard refused a conscience vote on same sex marriage in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull, is the current leader of the national Liberal Party, and Prime Minister. This government has backed away from a plebiscite on same sex marriage, and instead opted for a $140,000,000 political postal survey to be held instead. Traceable. To what end is anyones guess as the results are not binding, but one thing will be certain as the Australian Bureau of Statistics have been asked to undertake the survey, understanding potential political repercussions would certainly be possible.

This political climate surrounding religion, and the issue of same sex marriage being a hot button issue in Australia for the last 20 or more years, can not be left out of the account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.58.26 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)