This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
A paragraph was removed: Andrews is a strong supporter of, has provided significant funding for, a number of controversial, gender-related programs including the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program, and gender dysphoria services at both the Royal Children's Hospital and the Monash Medical Centre. - with the justification, "wild POV". While the underlying issues are contentious, the RS sourced, paragraph does articulate Andrew's POV. B20097 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a view of Andrews' stances on LGBT issues as articulated by Lyle Shelton and the ACL. It's a ludicrously biased description. I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
"I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language" & "if you see a problem, the best approach is to simply fix it yourself." WP:TMM Chapter 8 > I will put the paragraph back and you might do that. Thanks B20097 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope! There was nothing salvageable from that text - it could have been cut from an ACL press release. The entire framing of it is problematic (tying together Safe Schools and youth health care as "controversial gender-related programs" is an absolute ACLism). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Bravo for including references, but they do not seem to mention that the RCH/MMC programs are "controversial", or that the funding of any of the programs is "significant". Additionally, it sounds like Andrews is funding them personally. The inclusion of this passage at all seems a bit undue to me – if it has any effect on Andrews' political career, premiership or government (other than the ACL getting their knickers in a twist about it), maybe, otherwise it seems like a case of "So what?" to me. The article certainly needs expansion, but we need to be careful to distinguish about what goes in the Andrews article and what is done by his government. Compared to the CFA dispute for example, this is a pretty trivial "issue". --Canley (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)