Talk:Safe Schools Coalition Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

He said/she said

I don't think it is appropriate to be adding lengthy quotes to this article, especially in a controversy section. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. Further, I don't think it's appropriate to use that approach with every piece of content ever posted in a newsfeed on the Safe Schools Coalition Australia website. The latest case is a book that probably needs its own article on Wikipedia. Aside from the irony of posting an opinion piece that condemned a post by SSCA sharing details of the book when a newspaper in the same stable had previously promoted the book itself via its own pages, the post was obviously biased. The book contains a foreword by an expert in the field, but this detail was omitted in favour of the opinion of a former investment banker/former Senator. Trankuility (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Gender Fairy concepts for four-year olds are about as controversial as it gets. A reference to it should remain here, or as a separate Wiki article, if you wish. The terms "he said /she said" and "every piece of content ever posted" are exaggerations which do not strengthen your arguments. Australia has a free and robust press - and as such the entire sentence, "Aside from the irony . . . was obviously biased" - proves nothing. The wording of the original Gender Fairy Wiki version was relatively simple. It was subsequently expanded including the adding of the suggested reference to the foreword. Fine. There are many citations which could be selected / added, expressing concern about this book as a teaching resource for four-year olds - kindergarten kids. Lay people, including a "former investment banker & Senator", are people who can and have expressed legitimate objections. It is controversial. Strongly recommend leave the section as it is. B20097 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But this is mostly WP:UNDUE and politically motivated. Controversy is questionable when you contrast a former investment banker with a medical doctor who is head of a hospital service. Where is the controversy over the book on the Royal Children's Hospital page? The article in the SSCA newsfeed/blog is one of many, but many other organisations have similarly "promoted" it, including The Age, in the same stable as the publisher of the article by O'Chee. It's trivial, WP:UNDUE. For more on the quoted opinion piece see WP:NEWSORG. Aspects of this particular controversy would, in my view, more appropriately belong on a separate page for "The Gender Fairy", I recommend you start it. Trankuility (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have attempted to remove an unnecessary "he said, she said" section twice but both attempts have been reverted by User:B20097, here and here. The user has not taken the issue to this talk page.

The removed and reintroduced section is somewhat tangential, introduces a quotation that is then refuted, appears out of context with the rest of the section. It makes the section more unreadable and less useful. The editor is politically motivated with a very small range of pages edited, notably on same sex unions and the Australian Christian Lobby. I have come to believe that the editor is not interested in producing reasonable, encyclopedic content, but rather in stuffing this page content with as much material as possible to demonstrate controversy, regardless of readability and utility, and spreading similar content as far as possible. Other examples of similar content: example on Royal Children's Hospital page, example, example, example on La Trobe University page. Trankuility (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally don't support the inclusion of detailed commentary in articles, this one, as well. It doesn't add anything tangible. I support its removal. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in saying that I am a 'conservative'. Similarly there are 'progressive' Wikipedians, such as the large number of self-identifying LGBT Wikipedians. They appear from my observation (admittedly of a small sample) to primarily formulate their edits based on their worldview. There appears to be considerable 'politically-motivated', 'POV-agenda-pushing' coming from this group of Wikipedians. However, there seems to be a more critical scrutiny given to 'conservative' Wiki editors. I believe all the edits that I have made are within Wiki P&Gs for the reasons previously given. That an architect of the very contentious SSC scheme intends to say to concerned parents, "You know what? We’re doing it anyway, tough luck'! . . .'(It’s) not about celebrating diversity; not about stopping bullying, (It’s) about gender and sexual diversity". You say that is 'tangential'. I, along with (I suggest) a large number of Australians, say that is pivotal in understanding a/the SSC philosophy. That, with any rebuttal, is Encyclopedic. B20097 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand, but a quick look at the unreadable, unnavigable, trivia-filled mess that is the Australian Christian Lobby page shows your perspective and editing style very clearly. There is no dispute that this page has to present different sides of a debate. It has done that since I started the page. The point is that the content has to be meaningful, encyclopedic and relevant. Offhand stuff like "you know what" etc is unnecessary and should be deleted. Incidentally, I note that in your last revert you failed to include the rebuttal, which shows your lack of attention to issues of balance. Trankuility (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What on earth B20097? How can you think that every gay person is automatically a progressive? Are you serious?! You need to get out more. Timeshift (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case B20097 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Conservative editors' contribution pages can be linked to too - i'm not sure what one user's history proves, or how you can 'rest your case' as you haven't mounted any coherent case to begin with. Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of SSC concerns by Jeff Kennett and Cate McGregor

Two (very) notable people with direct connections to the SSC, and who would have been expected to be highly supportive of the SSC, have expressed serious concerns about the program. Their (similar) concerns have been reported by a number of RSs. Their concern was referenced in Wikipedia, but was subsequently removed, 19 August, with the justification given as: (WP:UNDUE, take it to talk.) Why is the inclusion of Kennett and McGregor's concerns deemed as UNDUE? B20097 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Because we don't care that much about what people say about things. It is just commentary. We aren't journalists. In the long run, we don't care about these sort of details because they are trivial. Informed people comment about things all the time. That doesn't mean they have to documented here. The same problem occurs on the Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia article. It is filled to the brim with he-said/she-said details which obscure the facts and make comprehension of the important information difficult. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The SSC has raised controversies. There are very divided views within the community. As with any SOCIAL issue, opinions of significant people have legitimacy in an encyclopedia. Can give hundreds of Wiki examples. The similar comments by (two-people-involved-with-the-SSC-and-both-otherwise-expected-supporters-of-the-SSC) Kennett and McGregor are not 'trivial'. They reflect much of the wider concern. The issues they raise are not otherwise covered in this SSC Wiki article. B20097 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No. What happened is that some ideologues choose to highlight a wedge issue and the media ran with it at the same time as discussion on same sex marriage was occurring. It was a fear campaign pushed by The Australian for political purposes. It is religious right-wingers like Bernadi chasing people who fear the wrath of god in the months before an expected election. It wasn't a reflection of any real deep community concern. Did you have any sources which support your claim that there was widespread concern about this initiative?

You've been sucked into it. Anti-bullying programs are not controversial, nor are reviews of such programs. Right-wingers are always overly concerned about the sexualization of society. It is not special or remarkable. It doesn't matter if an academic described it a certain way. It isn't our job as Wikipedians to make sure that any controversy over a social issue is documented here. This is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to provide a general overview for a general audience. It isn't a summary of contemporary news. I've had my say. I'm going to stop watching this page and not contribute to it. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiftchange said "Because we don't care that much about what people say about things" and I completely agree. It is ok to use what people say to illustrate key, substantive points about the nature of a program, but anything else risks being trivial and ephemeral. Worse, it diminishes the article because it reduces its readability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The substantive points about this program are already adequately made. Trankuility (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiftchange Thank you for clearing that up. Obviously it is only the "ideologues" and "religious right-wingers" including "people who fear the wrath of god" who have "been sucked in" to create a "fear campaign" and a "wedge issue" who are against this, "not controversial", "anti-bullying program".

That's okay. We see it often here on similar topics with devoted followers. Its understandable that some people are so swayed by mainstream media beat-ups. Lets leave that for social media and only include on-topic details that will matter to someone on the other side of the world in 50 years. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Trankuility Your response where you say, "It is ok to use what people say to illustrate key, substantive points about the nature of a program . . . ", as explanation for removing, "what people say to illustrate key, substantive points about the nature of a program", is equally unconvincing. B20097 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect anything I could possibly ever say would change that. Trankuility (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

unconvincing. B20097 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The comments of every random conservative commentator on the issue of the day lack notability for articles such as this, and adding each and every one with an option (and, surprise, not contrasting opinions) is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

1 "every random conservative commentator"

- Jeff Kennett / Beyondblue gave "almost $600,000" to the SSC.[1] Cate McGregor was asked to be an "ambassador for the SSC program". [2] [3] The two of them are not "every", nor are they "random". Cate McGregor is possibly Australia's most prominent transgender person and as such she is hardly a "conservative commentator". They both would be expected to be highly supportive of the SSC. There are many possible RS citations. >> That statement is an exaggeration.

2 "and adding each and every one with an option (sic)"

- "each and every" >> That statement is a WP:PEA embellishment of the current discussion and is not conducive to resolving this issue.

3 "(and, surprise, not contrasting opinions) is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE"

- Please read UNDUE carefully. It discusses and stresses, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. It does NOT say each Wikipedian-provided-contribution is required / expected to come with a "contrasting opinion". >> UNDUE stresses page neutrality. NOT sentence-by-sentence neutrality.

Using The Drover's Wife interpretation of WP:UNDUE, the following article rewording, which adds new insights and provides further page balance, is proposed:

Cate McGregor who was asked to be, "an ambassador for the program" and Jeff Kennett, of Beyondblue, who financially contributed to it, are both supporters of anti-bullying programs. However they are both very critical of elements of the Safe Schools Coalition program.[4][5][6] B20097 (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised that Simon Birmingham supported the program. Maybe we should include a table of every notable person in Australia who has commented on the program, so that readers can count them all? Maybe we could add a sentence or two on each notable Australian commentator, like the ACL article seems to have. It includes gems like "Days later, when Julia Gillard became the Australian Prime Minister, she was asked the same set of questions." But none of this actually adds any real information to the article at all. Trankuility (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Maybe we should include a table of every notable person in Australia who has commented on the program, so that readers can count them all?" > Wow! Please keep the discussion rational.

We are discussing this article, so your repeated references to the content of another article is irrelevant. WP:IAPD Please keep the discussion relevant to this article. B20097 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's called a Reductio ad absurdum. I don't see that other articles are irrelevant. It illustrates the point. Trankuility (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question, why Kennett and McGregor, you also need to answer the question of why not other commentators? What do they add to the article that other commentators do not. It appears to me that all they do is add a score for a single political point of view. Opposition is already detailed. Trankuility (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO

"The Safe Schools Coalition Australia is a national coalition of organisations and schools to create safe and inclusive schools for students, families and staff who are same sex attracted, intersex and/or gender diverse." seems to have been taken from [here] with only minor changes. Please rewrite it, not just change a few words. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The stated link gives an erro, page not found. The text has been changed, however. Trankuility (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor changes of word order etc, do not deal with a copyvio issue. I suggest that instead of copy/pasting from their website, and then trying to rearrange the words to bypass any copyvio issues, that you actually read what they have to say, and then write it in your own words. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

and yeah. the link doesn't work well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

ACT

There is obviously no problem with material based on these sources going in the article, but the text that is being added is basically incoherent. The articles make what happened extremely clear: that the ACT government objected to the federal government's changes (of which those laid out in the Wikipedia text were only some) and was going to fund their own go-it-alone effort, as Victoria had done. The text that was added this article got about a third of this out in the most roundabout way possible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility > Thank you. DW > It's better to fix an article than to complain about it on the article talk page. Per the guideline page Wikipedia:Be bold (shortcut: WP:BB), if you see a problem, the best approach is to simply fix it yourself. You don't have to fix it all at once, just start and keep chipping away at it. By contrast, putting a note on the talk page that "this article needs a lot of work" is pointless, because most articles in Wikipedia need a lot of work. WP:TMM B20097 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The text needed to be replaced, although the sources were fine, and I decided to politely raise it here rather than just revert you. I won't bother next time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - again - Rather than "I won't bother next time" better to unambiguously express your intentions in the form, "Next time I will . . . ." B20097 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, your explanation is incoherent. "I won't bother . . . . . (?) . next time". B20097 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this article about the coalition or the programs it operates?

As someone who has no dog in this fight, I would observe that this article is about an organisation. I therefore think it is reasonable that the mission of the organisation is expressed in their own terms in the lede, unless those terms so contort the English language that people would be mislead, in which case we should put the term in quotes and link it to what we believe is the meaning. While I would not personally have used the phrase "same sex attracted", their website clearly does and the meaning of it seems quite clear.

Another point of dispute is how prominent a role in the lede should be the controversy. Firstly, is the furour about the organisation? No, I don't think so. As I understand it from reading newspapers and watching current affairs programs, the furour appears to be about a particular program operating in schools. I don't know if this is the only program the organisation runs or one of many from reading this article. I think it reasonable that the lede summarises what the organisation is about before then adding that its "whichever program" has attracted controversy.

I think it would then be worthwhile to add a section about the content in the program itself. I think the article already covers the research that motivates the program, but what actually is in the program? Despite a lot of media coverage, I remain quite ignorant of its contents. Has anyone actually got a copy of the material to summarise it? Can anyone add a link to the material for the external links section? If we can't describe the program, it seems a bit pointless to discuss the controversy.

Then it should be possible to write in a Controversy section what are the elements of the program that are controversial and why? It seems to me that there is some common ground; everyone appears to agree that bullying in schools for any reason is bad and should be discouraged. It seems to me that some of the objections are just general opposition to anything LGBTI. But other objections appear to relate to particular elements of the program, e.g. I heard breast binding mentioned on the TV on several occasions. But I've also heard that this is not part of program but content on another website mentioned in the school's program. I have also heard that parts of the program target children too young to have developed an understanding of sexuality. Can we be more specific about the program's elements and where the objections are focussed rather than just name-dropping (which the article does far too much of) and high-level waffle about being Marxist-inspired (a perjorative label meaning "a very bad thing but I'm too lazy to tell you why")? Give the reader the facts of what the program contains and what objections are made about its contents and let the reader make up their own mind. I think that's what an NPOV encyclopedia entry should do. Kerry (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This page should cover both subjects. I agree the way forward is that we need a very careful examination of the material to expand this article. I don't think there was a controversy. All of the opposition to this is "I don't like it", an emotional response, which is something we have to avoid here. That is why its not appropriate to include detailed commentary, because it is likely to evoke emotions in the reader which detract attention away from our referencing. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede

The lede for this article is tiny (three succinct sentences) and a sweeping declaration of "controversy" without any context as to who is making it is undue weight, unneutral and generally inappropriate. 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

1 Not withstanding the internal inconsistency within the reasons given by The Drover's Wife for the removal of the sentence - 2 a sentence placement which can be justified under WP:PG & MOS:INTRO, along with 3 Kerry's request above, I think it reasonable that the lede summarises what the organisation is about before then adding that its "whichever program" has attracted controversy. For me, reality does not need to be defended. B20097 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Describe_the_controversy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, The Drover's Wife, as per Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Describe_the_controversy, a description was required (and also a source). I have provided both. Thank you for discussing it here, it makes it much easier to deal with a minor content dispute, when editors are actually making requests for something, rather than just deleting. Hopefully, as the description requested has been provided, we can continue improving this article, without the constant reverts. Thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't edit war.

That's four reverts in 24 hours, Drovers Wife. Please self revert or something, I really don't wanna make 3RR reports. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You added intensely controversial criticism of the subject to the opening sentence of a disputed article, without any discussion, knowing full well that that would not stand on literally any article on Wikipedia. I am not going to dignify a blatant attempt to trap someone into overrunning 3RR - because you were put out over your oddball language issues above - by deliberately adding edits you knew would be instantly reverted by any average editor (but on an article you knew I'd be more likely to see first). The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly a set of words such as, Both the rationale and the content of the program have generated controversies, are needed in the lead/lede. MOS:INTRO B20097 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not usual to add such a sentence to a lede on an organizational page. It is usual to discuss controversial issues, and this page does that. I agree with The Drover's Wife that the editing here was deliberately provocative and disruptive. The earlier additions were no more than purposefully disruptive. The latter additions included a bare reference, one already cited, and text that was out of context with the prior clause and following sentence. The editor's Contributions history shows a high proportion of disruptive edits, and subsequent discussion about those edits. Trankuility (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree B20097 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And despite all of the above, a content dispute is no excuse for breaking the 3RR rule. When The Drover's Wife made three reverts, I warned her, but this was ignored and a 4th revert was made. Just saying "I don't like it" is never an excuse for edit warring. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

Considering the fact that google returns many articles regarding the controversy surrounding this organization, I think it is not undue weight, to include this in the lede. The lede should show balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to the controversy being mentioned in the lede, but it should be discussed and agreed upon here first.

I just removed this: "Both the rationale and the content of the Safe Schools Coalition programs have generated controversies, for politicising the program, and for the promotion of disputed concepts regarding gender and sexual fluidity."

This is perfectly NPOV; however, the first half of it is also complete nonsense. "Both the rationale and the content of the Safe Schools Coalition programs have generated controversies" is a lot of words while actually saying nothing; "for politicising the program" is just...what?!?, where the last part actually starts to get at the point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's too hard for you to understand or you don't like the wording, then why are you not rewriting it, instead of making yet another revert. Trying improving the article, instead of removing content. BTW...the content you removed was in the source that I added, perhaps you could have read it, before clicking the undo button. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want the material in the article (and I am not objecting in principle, so long as it is written in coherent English), then the onus is on you to ensure that what you're adding isn't literal nonsense.

This said, I find it hard to assume good faith when you then go and make an edit like this. An attempt at adding POV invective into a lead sentence of an article is never going to fly, anywhere on Wikipedia, and you know that perfectly well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How is that POV? It's something cited from a reliable source. Is The Guardian not reliable? Are they known for fringe theories? It's balancing the lede, with all notable and reliable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence is for introducing the subject, not for trying to shoehorn opinions in at the first available opportunity before you've even explained - at all - the subject of the article. Look around at other controversial articles: they explain the subject, then they explain what people had to say about the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The lede is for introducing what the subject is best known for. If they are best known for being controversial, then it goes in the lede.

Falkland Islands George W. Bush Donald Trump - all refer to the controversy surrounding them (and actually use the word 'controversial or controversy" in the lede, or don't those articles count? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead section, not the lead sentence. This is why, to use your example, George W. Bush says "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who was the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009 and 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000", and not something like "George W. Bush was a controversial president". It says what the article is about. This shouldn't be controversial.

I am not arguing about referring to the controversy in the lead section as long as the proposed additions actually make grammatical sense: "Both the rationale and the content of the Safe Schools Coalition programs have generated controversies, for politicising the program, and for the promotion of disputed concepts regarding gender and sexual fluidity" doesn't raise NPOV concerns, but apart from the "disputed concepts regarding gender and sexual fluidity" (which describes the controversy! yes!), the rest of that sentence is nonsense. What does "politicising the program" mean in this context? What does "the rationale and the content of the Safe Schools Coalition programs" mean in this context?

As per WP:BRD, if you are bold and are reverted, stop and get consensus, rather than continually making controversial edits without consensus. Spamming templates on my talk page doesn't make your edit warring any more successful, and it won't get you a better outcome. Do the right thing, stop edit warring, and discuss controversial edits first. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's the the lede section, rather than the lede sentence. Happy? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

And now we have a random rant about Roz Ward in the lede section for however many hours it takes for someone to remove it. Why waste everyone's time with edits you know won't stand? The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The co-founder having to quit over controversial comments on social media, seems highly notable. Why would any neutral editor remove them? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would we include comments that aren't even about Safe Schools by someone who was involved in founding the program? Is it too much to ask that conservative rants you want included in the article actually be about Safe Schools? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"conservative rants"? The quote you don't like is by Roz Ward and reported by The Guardian. Do you dispute that she said it? Do you dispute that it was controversial? Do you dispute that it is what led to her leading the organization that she founded? You just don't like it Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning: Misleading addition to the lede

It's quite wrong to repeatedly reinsert a sentence with a claim that a named person is a Marxist, something that's irrelevant to the lede and to the article and is moreover sourced only to a subscriber-only article. And Roz Ward resigned from what? It doesn't say in the added sentence, so the reader of the article would naturally assume that it has to do with Safe Schools — but no, it hasn't. For anybody who cares to read first sentence of the Guardian source, what she resigned from was her advisory role with the Victorian government. User:Spacecowboy420, who originally added the material, talks above about "her leading the organization that she founded"[7]. I assume "leading" was a typo for "leaving", and I really don't understand how anybody could get that from the source, unless they just read the Guardian header and took a guess. I don't intend to edit this article, but if there's further edit warring to restore the material, I will be handing out blocks. Knee-jerk re-additions of misleading and undue text won't be tolerated, even if each user only does it once. And I suggest everybody tries reading the source. The Guardian source, that is — I don't know how many of you have access to the supposed Marxism source. (I don't.) Bishonen | talk 17:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

Unfortunately, we can't clean it up without first restoring it. Yes, I do have access to that source, but have been warned off, so that's that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is way out of line, to threaten blocks to one of the clearly-GF editors who has been doing the most lately to deal with the currently massive levels of IP socking. SPI is useless: reporting editors are attacked there, the "clerks" blank reports with no action and without even archiving them, and also say that SPI will simply not act on IPs; thus other editors have to do "what they can" to revert this damage - at the same time, under the threat of being blocked under 3RR.

Roz Ward is widely described as a Marxist. Apparently citing Australian newspapers for this is now a blocking offence (although RS is specific that paywalls do not invalidate a source), so here's the Grauniad again: [8], '“Marxist education adviser Roz Ward [has revealed] the true nature of the ‘Safe Schools’ program she co-founded,” thundered Miranda Devine' (with a further citation from the Oz Telegraph, which no doubt I'd be blocked for if I cited it). Now obviously this has to be phrased in Devine's voice, not WP's or even the Guradian's, but it is very obviously far from rare for prominent campaigners in this debate to be labelling her a Marxist.

As such it is right out of line for WP admins to be threatening to block editors, like Sro23, who have no political skin in this game but who are merely acting to restore damage from the free-range socks that no-one else up in the Mount Olympus mop cupboard has any interest in dealing with. Fish suppers for a certain lizard. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not one editor, three independent editors who all just happen to be equally "wrong". Then describing these editors as "disruptive": User_talk:Widr#Your_protection_of_Safe_Schools_Coalition_Australia.E2.80.8E and protecting the "right" article after the sock's last edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

when 'Damage' is assumed without making any attempt to reconcile the content or understand the reason for the change then warnings are appropriate. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not get our jollies from a game of 'whack a mole'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.155.10 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/49.196.159.137 Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an obvious sock of an already-blocked user. You simply don't get to edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: With regard to this article, however, these good faith users (there were more than one) were restoring piss-poor recently added content without concern for BRD, without using the talkpage, and I rather suspect without looking at the talkpage (let alone looking at the source). Good faith is not enough. In view of recent developments, I'm trying pending changes for a month. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

• But are you still allowing an obvious sock to have free-rein to repeatedly delete blocks of sourced content, under the threat of blocks to GF registered editors, yet no reaction at all to the (pretty hostile!) sock? Why is content, sourced from separate newspapers on opposite sides of the world, "piss-poor"? If you have a content issue with it, why are you threatening blocks left, right and centre, but you haven't even said what the issue is? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Marxist was in the source. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf "

You didn't like the comments about Roz Ward resigning? Perhaps you're right, I could have worded it a little better. "Roz Ward was suspended from the Safe Schools program, following her resignation from her advisory role with the Victorian government" would have been better, but this isn't a case of me being misleading. If the source doesn't clearly spell it out, then take a look at other sources.

PS. Please don't threaten me with a block for slightly poorly worded content, and a source that doesn't spell things out 100% clearly, when a quick re-wording and new source would have solved the problem. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The content wasn't 'piss poor' it just needed a slight re-wording and a different source. The editors reverting the sock IP were doing the right thing. Sockpuppets don't get the remove/add content. Especially not that sock IP, who has been highly disruptive stalking editors, with numerous IPs on numerous articles. 1. Block the IP. 2. Look at the content. 3. Decide between editors which version is best.

It's not very constructive to threaten editors who are working hard to battle a sock IP, with an editing block. Especially when a quick "hey, I know it was a sock IP, but the content is disputed" message would have dealt with things, much better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm assuming that with a reliable/verifiable source that supports the use of the word "Marxist" and sources that clear support the sentence "Roz Ward was suspended from the Safe Schools program, following her resignation from her advisory role with the Victorian government" there are no objections if I restore (and slightly modify) the content removed by the sock IP? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh. and [[9]] could do with being blocked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A Google search for The Australian and the words in its article title will usually find (and enable loading) the right page. Reading that article and The Guardian article shows that Spacecowboy420 has a mistaken understanding of the situation. There is no verifiable evidence in those articles for the assertion made. Trankuility (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, can you please state what "the assertion" is, and why it's wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying there is no evidence regarding the use of "Marxist" or no evidence regarding Roz Ward being suspended from the SSCA and resigning from her government advisory post? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence in either article for an assertion that "Roz Ward was suspended from the Safe Schools program". Ward was actually temporarily suspended from her employment with La Trobe University. La Trobe manages Safe Schools Coalition Victoria. It is not the same organisation as the Foundation for Young Australians that runs the Safe Schools Coalition Australia, which is the subject of this article. Trankuility (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So where is the contradiction? Her employment and paycheque might come from La Trobe, but she was involved in the program (program, not Coalition). Grauniad: "Roz Ward, the academic playing a leading role in the Safe Schools anti-bullying program, has been suspended by La Trobe University." She has some role (paid or unpaid) on the steering committee for the Coalition and I've heard nothing as to whether she's still there, but at the start of June the education minister Simon Birmingham wanted her to go. I don't know her role in the Foundation for Young Australians, but a statement that her role in the program has been "curtailed" seems reasonable and supported, even if we still have to juggle the wording for clarity and precision. This is not an issue to threaten to block three editors over! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In my view, more information is needed from reliable sources to make a clear assessment of what should be added. Moreover, I don't believe that a suspension of Ward from La Trobe is appropriate for the lede. The lede is supposed to sum up the article. As ScottDavis has pointed out, there are broader issues with the article and this serves as a hefty distraction. I agree with Bishonen regarding the inputs from Spacecowboy420 - in my view they have been targeted to disrupt, not to improve the article. Trankuility (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

headline = "Roz Ward suspended from controversial Safe Schools program"

in article = "SOCIALIST activist Roz Ward has been suspended from the controversial Safe Schools program over her comments slandering the Australian flag." "La Trobe University, where Ms Ward was based and runs the Safe Schools Coalition through its Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, has suspended her while it conducts an internal investigation into “serious misconduct”."

"The SSCA is a national coalition of organisations and schools that promotes awareness of homosexual and transsexual issues. The SSCA has been designed by La Trobe University’s Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria and is funded by the Federal government for $8 million. The Victorian government has provided another $2 million." The SSCA is just an updated version of the SSCV.

"Safe Schools Coalition Victoria was originally a joint initiative of FYA and Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria."

they are one and the same. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh yes, it was piss-poor, Spacecowboy420. There was nothing in the source you supplied about her being suspended from the SS, and yet it was stated in the material you added, and re-stated by you above; it was your whole excuse for adding the material. You didn't give any responsive replies to the people who complained about it above, you just edit warred in defiance of BRD. If she was suspended from the SS, and if you can source it, and if you intend to add something about it to the lede (where it seems undue to me, but that's not my business — I'm only concerned, in an admin capacity, with actual disruption to the article), then you need to try to get consensus for it here on talk first. That would be non-disruptive editing. As for the Marxism "comment",[10] it wasn't a comment, it was a statement in Wikipedia's voice that she's a Marxist. Don't do that unless you can show she has self-identified as a Marxist, and preferably show why it's relevant, too.

Andy Dingley, you ask why the content is piss-poor. I went into that in some detail in my OP above: I don't know what else to tell you. One of the editors who repeatedly restored it has apologized with grace, btw.[11] But if you would rather go on about admins on "Mount Olympus" than actually take stock of the material — here it is — and of my original post above, be my guest. It's a popular pastime at this site, after all. As for letting IP socks have "free rein", did you notice I mentioned I've put pending changes on the article? I'm baffled by your comment that I "protected the "right" article after the sock's last edit" — please look up what pending changes entails. There's nothing to stop any autoconfirmed user from editing the article, for instance to revert the latest IP edit, and any further IP edits won't show up on the page unless they're accepted by a reviewer. I thought you'd be pleased. I think I'm done here; at least, further questions about things I've already detailed aren't going to draw me back. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

You have come to this article, found a trivial content dispute, even for a BLP, and turned it into threats of immediate blocks to three (presumably four) GF editors who only came here to do laundry (only one of whom seems to have any prior connection here), whilst describing them to other admins as "disruptive". Yet you have done nothing to address the problem of an active and abusive sock?

Why are you going after the good guys?

The article's content is "controlled", not by technical measures like pending changes, but by the BLUDGEON of an admin saying they are going to block editors on sight for restoring sourced content.

Why are you going after the good guys?

This is a trivial content dispute. If there is a question as to the degree of their Marxism, then that's copy-editing and if you asked "this needs to be quoted as a commentator's voice, not WP's", then no-one would have the slightest quibble with that. Yet instead you have misrepresented the content issue throughout: you have misrepresented RS as if paywalled newspapers aren't RS, you have dismissed "the supposed Marxism source" as if it was a single source and only a paywalled source.

If you are here as an admin, act on socking, edit-warring and real, not imagined, disruption.

If you are here to make subjective editorial judgements on content, don't threaten to block other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're hardly "one of the good guys" if you substantively edit war to include BLP-violating material. Bishonen has done something about the sock (as she perfectly well explained), and at no point in that outrage do you actually respond to anything she says above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The sock edits to blank a section, Bishonen adds pending changes, but doesn't revert the sock and is still threatening immediate blocks to any editors who restore sourced content. That is an admin BLUDGEON acting to support the sock's version of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP before you edit war to insert such material in future. Bishonen clearly explained the problem with your "sourced content" and you continued to edit war anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the point you asked, and which I answered. If you think that I am edit-warring, then WP:ANEW is the place to raise that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen please block the sock IPs that were editing this article, they might not be able to edit this article, but they are editing other articles. That's more important than who was in the right on this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

? Isn't there an SPI? Checking... yes. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/49.196.159.137. If there's an IP that's still unreported there, you should report it. Not that there's much use in blocking hopping IPs. Not when I do it either, sadly. Pending changes, now, that will hopefully help this article at least. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

References

Bishonen "it was your whole excuse for adding the material." - I don't need an excuse to add material, neither do I need a source. You can challenge that content, but don't run around threatening blocks for adding unsourced content. Jeez, I got threatened with a blocks for removing unsourced content, and now I'm being threatened with a block for adding unsourced content. Is the content disputed? because I've shown sources that support the use of Marxist, and the fact that she was suspended from the SSCA.

Why does someone have to self identify as a Marxist, to be called one, if there are enough reliable sources to support it? This is not some politically correct debate over sexual identity, it's a political term. Do people have to "self identify" before we call them right wing, or conservative? Can I remove those terms from all articles in which the subject didn't "self identify" - The fact that she's a writer for [the red flag] should give you an idea of what her political leanings are.

" I think I'm done here; at least, further questions about things I've already detailed aren't going to draw me back. " - is that how admins are supposed to deal with things? Stomp around threatening blocks, get called on it, and then disappear, leaving the article in the same awful state it was on, before you got here.

You could have done something good here. You could have used your knowledge (a more powerful tool than a block) and helped us achieve consensus and stability. But you didn't... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed split

I have put a {{split}} tag on the article. At the moment, it does not make sense if the reader doesn't know what it's about already, and isn't much better if they do. It assumes far more than it should, and doesn't do a good job of explaining either the SSCA organisation and its purpose, governance and funding, nor does it clearly explain what the program is, how it is provided, who the intended audience is, and why any of that is considered controversial. It either needs a complete restructure, or several distinct articles, each with a clear subject and purpose. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing how a split is going to make an unclear article clearer? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article needs improvement, including an explanation about the history of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia, and the State and Territory versions. Recent State and Territory announcements suggest that each State and Territory may end up with very different local programs. A page for the Foundation for Young Australians already exists. Trankuility (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The organisation is not distinct from its sole program and reason for existence. You're right about the need for a complete restructure, though. It badly needs focus on discussing what it does, and where it discusses the controversy, to discuss what the controversy actually is about, rather than the vague and sometimes incoherent additions being made lately. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It also needs The Drover's Wife to stop edit warring. That might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discuss controversial changes on talk and there'll never need to be another revert on the article again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's no excuse for edit warring. You were lucky that I didn't report you the first time you broke 3RR. Don't imply that you will do it again, if you don't get your way with every bit of content in this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If attempts to discuss controversial additions to the article are just ignored (as my attempts to discuss the actual text of your changes and come to a consensus version have been), then yes, they will be reverted. Bully tactics will not be rewarded. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you consider any content added or removed without your permission to be a "bully tactic"? and something that means that you are allowed to ignore 3RR? I don't get more than three reverts, so neither do you. But thank you for confirming that you are unwilling to respect edit warring rules, despite receiving previous warnings. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Because the SSC ethos and the SSC program-output are inextricably linked, they should be described together. B20097 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a clear response to the proposal to separate the organisation from the program. I have removed the split banner, and attempted to improve the top part of the article to give a little more introductory information. I hope I didn't "choose sides" in any edit war, and have attempted to report what the organisation claims to have as its aims. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a good idea Scott, I don't think your proposal was on any particular "side" in this drama. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

same sex attracted/homosexual

Why is homosexual (obviously the most commonly used, non-derogatory term) being removed, and replaced with "same sex attracted" ?

...because it's neither of those things? It's not what the Safe Schools Coalition use (because it's neither of those things), and it has one third of the Google hits as the language you removed in this context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking?

Homosexual - About 47,400,000 results

Same sex attracted About 1,260,000 results

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Same sex attracted" "Safe Schools Coalition" turns up exactly that over "homosexual" "Safe Schools Coalition". Wikipedia doesn't use dated and pejorative language that isn't cited in the sources because of your feelings. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with my feelings, it's just a word. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual it's neither dated, not pejorative. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to gay. That should be a nice compromise. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Except it doesn't mean the same thing, and excludes bisexual people (and others) entirely - which is flagrantly misleading, since the program does not exclude them, and specifically uses the language you're trying to remove in order to include them. Why do you have such passionate opinions when you don't seem to know anything about the language or LGBT issues? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If I were to venture opinion, I would say that this user is being deliberately provocative in an attempt to garner attention. The user is involved in a number of other disputes over the recent month, comprising a significant proportion of overall edits. Trankuility (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that GLAAD doesn't share your opinion about the terminology. Your edits are becoming disruptive. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility you need to focus on content rather than editors. You've reverted me on too many articles recently, I'm starting to feel as if you are harassing me. Stop it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You started a discussion [here] but didn't respond after your initial comment. You should rely a little more on talk pages, rather than just following me and reverting me. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You're still unilaterally attempting to redefine SSCA's target audience to exclude bisexual people, and this still doesn't make any more sense than it did the last time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual Adding a break for accessibility, and hopefully to help coalesce agreement around htonl's suggested guidelines from above (modified):

When referring to a particular source (e.g. a quote, an opinion poll, etc.) we should use the same wording used in the source. When using a term to refer to a period before it was widely adopted (1960s for "gay", late 19th century for "homosexual"), be careful to avoid anachronism. We should avoid using "homosexual(s)" as a noun in Wikipedia's voice. When talking about specific modern people (BLPs in particular) we should refer to them according to the way they have identified themselves - which usually, these days, means "gay" or "lesbian" rather than "homosexual"."

[12]

LGBT is acceptable. Gay is acceptable. Same sex attracted, is not. It's a neologism.

The above is not my opinion, it's consensus, that was reached on WikiProject LGBT, through discussion.

So which would you prefer? LGBT or Gay? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alan Jones, Tim Wilson, Jeff Kennett, Cate McGregor and the SSC

Four Australian, notable, prominent-LGBT-advocates have strongly criticised elements of the contentious SSC-LGBT-program. Their new, insightful perspectives have been denigrated, and deleted, as no more important than those of, "every person and their dog" by the Drover's Wife. Seems a pattern here for views critical of the SSC > Catherine McGregor dropped from LGBT group over anti-Safe School comments B20097 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

of course they are notable. They are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia, and are involved in LGBT issues. I can't think of any reason to even consider their comments as not relevant to this article. Assuming good faith is becoming rather hard with the Drover's Wife. The removal of everything that doesn't paint SSCA as the best thing in the world, is not about creating a neutral article, it's about whitewashing the entire article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence Notable Australians including Cate McGregor, Jeff Kennett, Alan Jones and Tim Wilson have criticised elements of the program. does not explain why these people's opinions are any more significant than the thousands of other Australians with Wikipedia articles about them, and someone else could also pick a grab-bag of "notable people" who have "supported elements of the program". I would support The Drover's Wife in removing the sentence in that state, but would encourage its proponents to expand it into a paragraph. For example, explaining why it is significant that a trans-woman thinks that the Safe Schools Program is the wrong way to address the issue. Find the relevant quote about how the SSP promotes gender fluidity, but to a trans-sexual person, gender identity is important, not irrelevant. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps rewording it, instead of removing it, would have been the best option? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rewording it doesn't solve the problem that Scott just explained. We don't list every notable person and their dog who support the program either - because neither of those things are notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So we don't include criticism from prominent and notable people, who are closely connected to a certain issue? I guess that means every single criticism section that doesn't have a source confirming exactly why that criticism is notable, should be removed. Are you sure?

The fact that there are reliable, verifiable media sources that show this criticism, makes it notable. Sorry, that's how notability works. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article: just because someone has an opinion on something does not mean that that opinion is notable and relevant enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article about it. Four conservative commentators (respectively, a radio shock jock, a famously homophobic former conservative politician, a Liberal MP and a notoriously conservative trans person who your own source notes in her own words is strongly opposed by most LGBT people) is hardly "closely connected" to the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, calling Tim Wilson a "critic" of Safe Schools is patently misleading and wildly misrepresents his views as someone who launched the program and fairly slightly partially walked his support back following his government's change of policy: he still does not pretend to agree with a lot of the "criticism" covered in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, your understanding of how notability works is mistaken. Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Maybe you are thinking of verifiability. However while information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page (to keep the conversation in one place, with the wider audience):

Surely, the fact that the criticism is reported in the media, makes it notable. I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall foul of undue weight, so why remove it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From Spacecowboy420's latest edit summary adding a list of opponents:

no reason for removing a pretty much standard list of notable critics. If you wish to add to the article to explain their notability, feel free.

My response to both (and the above): The Wikipedia article should be able to stand on its own. The disputed sentence does not add anything useful to a reader who is unable/unwilling to access the supporting references, and unfamiliar with those people. It is up to the people adding material to the article to demonstrate why it improves the information for the reader. The other paragraphs in that section each explain what a person or group's objection is, and why their message is significant. The disputed sentence is not much more than "four other famous people said me too". I think it likely that Kate McGregor and Jeff Kennett are likely to be useful additions to the article, the other two I don't expect to be, but Someone who wants it included needs to find the references and write the text to be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the topic. I got to this article because I wanted to find some well-referenced, unbiased information. I have not found it yet. It would be helpful to have opinions from competent child psychologists, too (for or against - but more likely "a bit of both"). --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:ScottDavis for your balanced response. The program has raised serious issues within the community. Unfortunately even when background material was provided: 1. Cate McGregor > transwomen, Queensland Australian of the Year, "had been asked to be an Ambassador for the SSC program and had initially agreed". 2. Jeff Kennett > His organisation provided almost $600,000 towards the SSC. 3. Tim Wilson > gay man, former 'Australian Human Rights Commissioner', both a supporter of, and critic of, the SSC. 4. Alan Jones, gay man, "Radio broadcaster" (see below). All of this is also deleted, with the pejorative rationale being their views rank no higher than those of, "every person and their dog".

Advice as per WP:TMM Chapter 8, "It's better to fix an article. . . " , is ignored and the just-blast-it-away technique is used.

User:Shiftchange uses as the justification for the removal of comments by denigrating them as just, "he/she said comments". Shiftchange also intriguingly says, The same problem occurs on the Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia article. It is filled to the brim with he-said/she-said details which obscure the facts and make comprehension of the important information difficult. Shiftchange using his rule, then proceeds to remove content within the Wiki article Australian Christian Lobby. However, User:Shiftchange does nothing about the problem which he identifies on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia  ??

Consider the 'Jones words' contained in Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia.

 In May 2015, Radio broadcaster Alan Jones commented on the push to legalise same-sex marriage saying, "my view is that when people find love they should be able to celebrate it. And they shouldn't be discriminated against according to the nature of that love. To deny people the recognition for a relationship which is based on love is to deny in my opinion one of humankind's most basic, but as I said elusive, qualities. Let the Parliament vote. It makes the laws of the land... we shouldn't be frightened about celebrating the love of one person for another".   

Keeping in mind, as Trankuility says, "I don't see that other articles are irrelevant". Why then are 82-WP:COPYVIO-words of Alan Jones acceptable on the SSM page, but any mention of Alan Jones' views is not acceptable in this SSC article?

The justifications on this SSC page, for the removal of SSC criticisms, are far from convincing. B20097 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

The article already contains plenty of information on criticisms of Safe Schools, and no one's trying to remove it. The case has not been made for adding the opinions of this grab-bag of added randoms to the article (and, beyond their being randoms, there have also been attempts to mislead readers both about their supposed connection to the article and their actual views on the subject). The problems with "he said/she said details" at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia are not an excuse to spread the same problems here; they're a reason to fix that article. (Why is Alan Jones' opinion on marriage equality relevant there either?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:B20097 says that "The program has raised serious issues within the community". What we therefore need is a summary of those concerns. What we don't want is a running list of what was said about it. It isn't appropriate here, at all, in the slightest. So that is why there is no he said/she said commentary on the Elizabeth II page, for example. Even though great detail about what was said and done by people very close to the Queen in relation to her and which has been published at a much greater level than this subject has been, it is still not included in that article. We shouldn't adding that type of commentary to any of the articles listed in this discussion. We should be removing it. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've already said, the wording is easy. We have the sources to explain who these people are, just because someone is (in the opinion of Drover's Wife) "a notoriously conservative trans person" (oh and please watch BLP when making such comments, BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles), does not exclude them from the article. We then have to consider if they are actually as relevant/notable as "everyman and his dog" or if these people are notable/relevant and if their comments are notable/relevant. The people in question are obviously notable. They have wikipedia articles. Cate McGregor's comments are certainly notable, as someone who had initially agreed to be an Ambassador for the SSC program, criticism from her, is very relevant, and benefits the article. The inclusion of her comments should be alongside details of her role in LGBT issues. Jeff Kennett stating that his organization will remove funding for the SSCA if Roz Ward remained, is equally notable, relevant and beneficial for the article. Perhaps a reasonable compromise to consider, would be adding content based on those two people, and leaving the other two off the article, until such time as we can show notability/relevance/benefit from their inclusion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As Shiftchange noted above, "However while information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." This said, I think you've provided the first reasonable argument for including Kennett in this article, and I wouldn't object to something along the lines you stated going in. I'm open to McGregor going in as long as it's balanced by some of the content from the article B20097 cited above about her being fired as patron of that organisation as a result: while I don't think she's relevant here, I won't argue the point if the text doesn't try to portray her as something she isn't and doesn't claim to be (such as the text that claimed she was an "notable LGBT supporter"). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiftchange How about just fixing the Jones COPYVlO essay-on-marriage which you raised above, rather than adding another red herring by appealing to Elizabeth II. Thank you User:The Drover's Wife for also asking > "Why is Alan Jones' opinion on marriage equality relevant there either?" Shiftchange over to you.

For the SSC article, how about:

In May 2016, Queenslander of the Year, transgendered, Cate McGregor who "had been asked to be an Ambassador for the SSC program and had initially agreed" subsequently said that she does not agree that the Safe Schools program is the best way to support transgender children.  McGregor said she objects to the program as she believes it is underpinned by a political ideology with which she does not agree, saying that the program, "teaches a derivative of Queer Theory, which I believe leads trans people into a blind alley." McGregor was subsequently fired from an LGBTI organisation of which she was Patron, for those comments.   Beyondblue provided almost $600,000 to the LaTrobe University to administer the Safe Schools program.  However its chairman, Jeff Kennett had threatened to withdraw future funding and called for the founder of the program to resign because of her, "extreme political views".  However, others have said in defence of the program that . . . . . .  

Improvements to the above wording are welcome. B20097 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion on which articles I might like to work on. Whats more important is that we remove what has been described as "new, insightful perspectives" because they don't really matter. We are concerned with the subject of the article not the opinions of people. I think its important for you to place much less emphasis on what was said about something, especially from politicians. QEII wasn't a red herring. Could you explain why there isn't commentary about her on her article? Why don't you go to that article and add some quotations from important, related people, for example, people who said things when the Queen received severe press criticism following Princess Diana's death. Surely with her much higher profile it would be more important to include insightful perspectives from various people. But that would be weird, like reading quotations on this page is. It interrupts having a good read and we don't want emotive language here. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

After quickly scan reading the above. (yeah, I know that's bad, but I'm at work and sooooooo busy today), the only change the I can immediately think of is modifying "McGregor was subsequently fired from an LGBTI organisation of which she was Patron, for those comments." to include the name of the organization she was fired from. From the source given, I would be careful about using the term "fired" - the source stated "Kaleidoscope president Paula Gerber told News Corp an invitation to McGregor to become a patron of the organisation was retracted after they learnt about her comments opposing Safe Schools." But overall that is a very good step in the right direction. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd change "Queenslander of the Year, transgendered," to "Queenslander of the Year and "transgender woman" and ", for those comments" to "for her opposition to Safe Schools" (or "the program"), because it's more about her general opposition than the specific quote/comment cited. I'd also perhaps add a one-sentence quote from McGregor herself about the backlash against her for that stance (which, as she has spoken about, was quite a bit wider than just Kaleidoscope). I also think Spacecowboy420's wording about Kaleidoscope makes sense. I think the Beyondblue thing and the McGregor thing should be in separate paragraphs, because they're not really tied together. Otherwise, I think that's pretty reasonable, and I don't think the "However, others have said in defence of the program that..." bit is necessary (if more negative material is added, it probably will ultimately need more balance, but tacked onto the end of this isn't the place). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Going over the text currently in the article - if we're adding Kennett and McGregor, does anyone mind if we chop Kevin Donnelly? (Who is Kevin Donnelly? He's not even particularly notable among conservative commentators with an interest in this.) There's also the unnamed person from the "Young and Well Co-operative Research Centre" (who?) who sits on the fence and doesn't particularly add anything to this article either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I will distill the suggested improvements to the above paragraph and add it to the article for on-going refinement. (WP:TMM Chapter 8). I suggest Wiki editors add support-for the SSC program, rather than just deleting concern-about.

User:Shiftchange May I suggest that it is much more straight-forward to create an encyclopedic article about a 'thing' (such as the Redcliffe Fire Station) or about a 'person' (as per your suggestion Elizabeth II) rather than it is to create an encyclopedic article about a 'concept' or a 'position', such (as your suggestion re Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia). Here we are discussing SSC's 'position'. A 'position' can not be divorced from actions and re-actions. These can be positive and/or negative. It is not productive to denigrate (at times deeply-held) views, as simply, he said / she said. Sweeping deletions, because they don't suit a particular POV, or with the 'justification' that the article is 'too-long', only diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. B20097 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

All articles are created with the same policy and guidelines and for the same ends. Take our section on quotes from the Manual of Style for example. It suggest editors "consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing". We aren't here to discuss or create the ideal reference for SSC's 'position' (whatever you might mean by that because I am not sure). That is the role of the organisation, not Wikipedia. We are here to document the what, when, where, why and how of things. We aren't here to document what people said about things or what people described things as or how people feel about things. We leave that for other media. Content should be written in Wikipedia editors' own words.

I don't understand why you feel that it so important to have what people said about things in articles. What people say is trivial. The various perspectives held by people on things are not appropriate to add to an encyclopedia. It bears little consequence to the subject. For example, it is trivia what the NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli said about the program. What matters is what he and his ministry did or do with the program. From the unoffical guideline linked above "Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability." One just has to compare Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia with the Elizabeth II article to see how much better and easier an article without long quotations is to read. Could you please show me a good or featured article with lengthy quotations, preferably about a similar kind of subject? - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that within Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, paraphrasing should be used rather than verbatim quotes. However a Minister for Education is not just a 'person' and what he says on this matter is not 'trivial'. Possibly the only reason for direct quotes (in these social articles) is that there can be no ambiguity, or spin, when the actual words are provided. The increasing use of citation-paywalling, seems to me, to be another reason. You keep quoting Elizabeth II as a model/template article. OK - On a quick check, two direct quotes are used there (maybe more) "You keep talking . . . all will be well." [46 words] "The Queen has been absolutely . . . means to be a Queen" [47 words]. Meanwhile in SSC, "very unhelpful because . . . our schools [30 words] and "Safe Schools materials . . . this policy has not been adhered to". [30 words]. The word-winner remains Alan Jones [82 words]. I am happy to paraphrase SSC quotes. B20097 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I sit somewhere between the two of you: I don't think you can talk about the SSCA story without talking about the anti-SSCA campaign, and you can't really explain the anti-SSCA campaign without documenting what they said (or the types of reasons stated for being anti-SSCA). I'm not particularly strongly wedded either way but the quotes removed seemed relatively typical of the rhetoric thrown at it, and I'm okay with the reader being given the information and making up their own minds. (The Piccoli bit is important because what happens to it at state level is important, that explains the NSW end, and the debate around implementation is so politicised that pretending it isn't seems unhelpful.) But I am also very much against "he said/she said" for the sake of it, and "add support-for the SSC program, rather than just deleting concern-about" doesn't cut it, because we should always be asking why some persons feels about the subject are actually relevant here. I flipped my view on Kennett because a good argument was made about why some of his comments were, and enough to be on the fence about McGregor, and am quite open to keeping the ACL/Christensen/etc. quotes because they're key players in the anti-SSCA campaign and it's typical of their rhetoric, but we should be asking "so why is this here?" about any random quotes in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If the program has raised serious issues within the community (as User:B20097 claimed above) then those issue need to be listed (or paraphrased) with reliable sources. If someone says something about the program it is not remarkable, especially if it is typical rhetoric. So for Piccoli, as you say, what is important is what they do, not what he says. Can you see the distinction? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The "serious issues" being claimed and the ridiculous rhetoric are one and the same; while I'm all for trying to distil down the key issues, much of the anti-SSCA campaigning is, in substance, exactly that quoted in the article. If Wikipedia is going to go there, it needs to explain what is actually being said. Similar with Piccoli - what he does is important, but so is why he did it. I don't agree that trying to academicise their reasoning is useful here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't go there and from the looks of most article we don't go there. Its not our role. It allows some to use Wikipedia for their advocacy. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I still maintain that direct quotes have a place in this article. I also believe that for these 'social' articles, if you document only the 'outcomes' rather than the competing arguments - this would be as incongruous as documenting the 2016 Redcliffe Fire Station and saying nothing about its history. Again, to move this article-discussion on, I am willing to paraphrase direct quotes. I will start with the 'NSW response'. You are welcome to improve. B20097 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that it's about documenting "competing arguments" so much as explaining the why as well as the what, but otherwise I agree. I often think paraphrasing can be worse in these kinds of situations: "pressurises children on gender issues" is super-vague and doesn't tell you anything, while " stated that the program pressured kids and "confuses them about their own identity"" at least gets to what their problem is. I'm dubious about including the "Confederation of Indian Australian Associations" (who?), but if you're not going to include why they took issue with the program, mentioning them to say that they "criticised" it is pointless. (This also gets to us accurately reporting what their views actually are, which has been a problem with some past versions.) Again with Piccoli - stating that he ordered the resource to be immediately removed is pointless if you don't say why he did that (that he was insistent that it not diverge from the Libs' amended federal program in NSW). If we're going to go there at all with this stuff, we need to give readers some credit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be on the same page. You might have a go at improving the article. B20097 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave in the things that Shiftchange took out, I think - my main concern was with the paraphrasing. I just made a few cuts of my own based on things I've said above: removing the " Young and Well Co-operative Research Centre" because a) who are they? and b) they don't say anything insightful either way, removing Kevin Donnelly because he's insignificant, and trimming the bit about the acceptance of the Queensland petition because the added sentences don't seem to add much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

All fine. B20097 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Justification for inclusion?

Why are the views of the Australian Christian Lobby outlined on this page? Why don't we have statements from the leading anti-monarchists on the current monarch of the Commonwealth page? Could it be that sort of commentary doesn't belong here. We don't report what was said. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Australian Christian Lobby spearheaded the campaign that successfully saw its operation curtailed at a federal level; if we're going to talk about the anti-Safe Schools campaign in this article (and much as I disagree with it, I struggle to find a strong argument for not doing so), it's nonsensical not to talk about the reasons stated for opposing it. I had a major problem with undue weight on those views when this article first blew up as being controversial, but I see the current state of the article as being quite reasonable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So one article you listed doesn't have critical statements? Ok. NRA, PETA and 100000s of other articles do have critical statements on them. Try not to base this article's content on what is best for other articles, base it on what is best for this article. And always remember...other stuff exists Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My favourite bit is the sentence "McGregor expressed her disappointment". lol How about the synthesis in the lead which is really the crux of the matter. I can't see any statement in the linked articles which says that there is opposition to the program because "it teaches concepts relating to sexuality and gender in schools". This implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. In fact, the main point of the article is that opposition is based on homophobia and transphobia. It goes on to explain how the ACL is misinforming people about the content of the program. The other article listed as a reference makes no claim on why the program was opposed. Lets also not forget that the review recommended few changes to the program. There are no "issues" with the program. That section doesn't belong. It is undue weight. The program was reviewed like many government programs are. The little changes made around the edges should be mentioned but not the reasons why certain segments of the community oppose it and certainly not any statements of opinions. That would belong on an article about a controversy, not on an article about an anti-bullying campaign. We can paraphrase what matters without advocacy or being news-like. When we do that we will have an article which reads better and has less trivia. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your statements that this is just "an anti-bullying campaign" and not controversial, show that you are unlikely to offer a neutral point of view while editing this article. Obviously, it's a controversial pro-LGBQ campaign. (well, at least that is what numerous reliable sources are stating) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Here we can see a more accurate description as "a sustained campaign by conservative MPs and The Australian newspaper.". A simple statement like that is all that is needed to explain what prompted a review. Its best if we get rid of the Issues section with its unbalanced, trivial, advocatory, quotation and emotive-language filled news-like reporting. We should have Review section because there was some changes but there are no issues, just a routine campaign (fueled by homophobia as indicated in the article I linked above, the very thing which the program is fighting against) and a review of a government funded program. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)