Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
|
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've just finished creating the page Parental rights movement—as an aside, I would invite input to that article—I believe it would be good to link out from this article. I know this article doesn't have a See Also section, so I hesitate to suggest the creation of one just for this. Maybe another editor could suggest an alternative? Thanks. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Done I've added a wikilink from "...parental rights..." in the "Organizations and other individuals" section. Marking as answered, but if you have a different suggestion, feel free to reopen. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- In the lede what if: "The law is most notable for its controversial sections which..." got changed to "The law, which purports to further parental rights, is most notable for its controversial sections which..."
- I'm not sure if inserting this in the lede would require consensus on a hot-button article. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}}template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Saw something interesting in another article I wanted to add in the Aftermath section, but I can't edit it with the extended protection thing:
editBeginning in 2022, several Republican lawmakers vowed to oppose any future attempt to extend the copyright term due to Disney's opposition of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act.[1] 79.24.89.122 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Martín, Hugo (May 11, 2022). "Republicans took away Disney's special status in Florida. Now they're gunning for Mickey himself". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 11, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
Claims that Fox News uses the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines
editI just removed a claim that Fox News used the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines and replaced it with a claim that Fox News affiliates have used the term in headlines. The original claim, based on the given reference, is between misleading and outright false, possibly intentionally so. The supporting reference linked to a local Fox affiliate in Cleveland[1], but the Fox affiliate explicitly notes on their website that article was from AP. The Wikipedia reference, however, claimed the website was a "Fox News" (including Wikilink); one would have click on the source to realize it was not the actual "Fox News" website.
After looking into it, the vast majority of articles from Fox News that involve the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" are outright calling the term "false" or are otherwise attacking or attempting to dispel or disprove the term (as would be expected). The closest thing I could find to the actual Fox News website using it was the headline, "Former Florida state rep who sponsored 'Don't Say Gay' bill breaks silence after prison sentence: 'Dark days'"[2]. However, the same article states, "sponsoring a parental rights bill Democrats referred to as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill" and "The bill sparked a national firestorm as Democrats and media outlets quickly dubbed the bill "Don't Say Gay" legislation despite the word gay not appearing anywhere in the bill's text." In summary, the original reference should not be used to support the claim that Fox News has used the headline "'Don't Say Gay' bill". One could possibly argue that Fox News did use it in a headline based on the one I discussed, but I would probably consider this a half truth when considering the broader context of not only the language of the article using it, but the overwhelming number of headlines and articles from Fox News explicitly attacking the term. While I added a source from a Fox News affiliate and corrected the article to say that it is from a Fox News affiliate, I don't know if a Fox News affiliate using the term is notable for the article, or if the entire reference to "Fox News" using the term should be removed. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References 1 through 4 on this article all link to the same Florida House of Representatives bill text PDF. If I'm correct about this being a worthy change, could these be compacted into one reference that all of the in-text citations link to? (As in WP:REPEATCITE, I would assume using named references) Nerdy314 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just caught another instance of this with references 103 and 104 (Florida Senate bill website) if that could be fixed as well. Nerdy314 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done oh it's another π fan, yay! 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 10:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we add a link to the statute?
editIt was a little challenging for me to find the statute. I believe it's 1001.42.
Is there an appropriate place in the article to put it? For example, second sentence of the lede, "The law..." followed by (1001.42) in parentheses with a direct external link? I'm not sure of the best way to do this, in part because the site shows the law as of today, and past and future may differ. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The external links section at the bottom? Dronebogus (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about both? I added it to the External Links and the second ¶ of the lead (first ¶ is about the bill; becoming law is the second). Great catch, @Tuckerlieberman. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus @Last1in Thank you! Tuckerlieberman (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about both? I added it to the External Links and the second ¶ of the lead (first ¶ is about the bill; becoming law is the second). Great catch, @Tuckerlieberman. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)