Talk:Disney and Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Self-nominated at 11:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment The lede needs to be rewritten. The prose needs to be copy-edited. Just my two cents, this is not a review. --evrik (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook strictly needs rephrasing. Disney didn't help fund the bill, it donated to the bill's sponsors. That's not the same thing. Bills don't get funded as such, proposing bills is the politicians' job, they don't go out hat in hand asking for money for them to propose bills. In fact, if there were proof that they asked for or received money specifically for proposing a bill, that could well be impeachable or outright criminal. Maybe something like "during the reaction to Disney's response to Florida's ..."? Though "reaction to response" awkward - is there an even better suggestion? "Disney's support for"? Though the whole article is about the fact the support changed to opposition ... eh - good luck! I'd also not say "revealed", that's a loaded term implying this is true and the studio was hiding it, and not supported by the source which says "allege".

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: The copy-editing comments have a point, but it's not so bad as to make it ineligible for DYK. I'd personally recommend replacing the repeated phrase "released a statement" with "stated", "released a statement condemning" with "condemned", remove all the "according to X" in consecutive sentences, as it's obvious you're continuing to relate what X stated, etc. "Ownng" nd "involvment" bth nd vwls. The Quid pro Quo DYK review is necessary, as nominator has 8 previous DYK nominations. I see there is a move discussion as Antony22 suggests; I think it's worth moving to the correct name for the bill - though that won't be a blocker if it doesn't happen. The hook needs rephrasing as mentioned above. And yet, I think none of these things will be too hard to fix, and expect this to qualify for DYK soon. A nice article. GRuban (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed both instances of grammatical errors and also ran the text through a proofreading program to ensure there might be something else I missed. I also changed some of the sentences a little bit for better flow. I will also try to perform my QPQ as quickly as possible. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about if the hook reads: "that in response to Disney funding the sponsors of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees asserted that despite internal protest, Disney often removes LGBT references from the studio's films? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Still a bit awkward. What about removing a few of the words, something like "... in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that Disney often removed LGBT references from the studio's films"? Awkward is a matter of taste, of course, so if you think your version is better in places or wholly, that will work. I see the move discussion is mostly against changing to the bill-numbers title, and may even have been convinced that the current name is better. Template:Ping me when you've decided and done the QPQ. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: QPQ done with List of accolades received by Shiva Baby; interested in seeing that film now, lol. As for the hook, I do think your version is definitely an improvement. So, how about the hook being like this: "in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that despite internal protest Disney often removed LGBT references from the studio's films?". I honestly would be okay if you thought removing the "despite internal protest" part. One thing I do wanna question however is this: should the word be removeD or removeS? Since this is something that apparently occurred as recently as 2021? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for ALT2: "...that in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that despite internal protest Disney often removes LGBT references from the studio's films?"
I won't insist on removing the "despite internal protest" part, and will trust your judgment on removes vs removed, as even though the article does point towards an about face, the source does quote the letter using the present tense: "gay affection is cut ... we are being barred from creating it". --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion to change the name of this article. When that is resolved, this can be reassessed. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: The discussion has closed and the page has been moved. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it has. @GRuban: do you still approve ALT2, considering the name change? If so, please add a tick below, and if not please state your concerns below. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It is still the common name. --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban and PanagiotisZois: I've been thinking about this for a couple days, and I don't think the hook should refer to the bill as the "Don't Say Gay bill". I am concerned that this is not the official name of the bill, but rather a slogan or designation given by opponents. This might give the hook a POV feel, inadvertently giving the perception that Wikipedia is taking the side of the bill's opponents or putting inaccurate information about the name of the bill on the main page. I would like to hear your and others' opinions on whether the hook should be changed to say "Florida's House Bill 1557". Thanks for indulging me. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove that the bill is usually known as "Don't Say Gay", then it's not clear why the second part of the hook about removing LGBT references would be relevant. But maybe you can propose an alternative hook? --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a: ... that in response to Disney's support for Florida's House Bill 1557, also known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that Disney removes LGBT references from the studio's films?
@GRuban: The hook's size caused me to remove "despite internal protests" to get it under the 200 character limit. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - as you can guess, I do not object to removing "despite internal protests" as above. I'd restore the "often", but otherwise would be OK with that. Let's see what Panagiotis says. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with "despite internal protests" being removed to keep the character count below 200. As for the "often" part, it definitely has the hook edge closer to the 200 mark, but still fall below it, so it wouldn't be a problem. I'd argue to include it, especially since both this source and others, indicate that this has been happening with many of their recent films. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for ALT2a, striking the others. --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a to T:DYK/P5

Expand/move[edit]

This is a great article and I'm glad someone made it, but I think it ought to be made into an article about the bill itself, with the Disney response being a subsection of that. There is much more that can be written about the bill than just what Disney did and the little included in the LGBT rights in Florida article. --Pokelova (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that one could easily make an article about the bill itself as a whole. Having said that, I'm not sure that a page about the bill itself necessarily means that this page cannot continue existing. As one can see both online and also news stations and whatnot, a lot of discussions have occurred regarding the bill and Disney's connection to it. Enough that an article focusing on the connection of these two topics—Disney and the bill—can exist. Having said that, I might be biased due to creating this article, so I can understand having this article's contents become a subsection in an article about the bill itself. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. WP:NPOV, specifically WP:NPOVNAME, is argued to be in favor of the proposed move. Multiple opposers had highly reasonable doubts, however, that were grounded in WP:COMMONNAME, which makes the close much more difficult. Many people wrote in with comments about articles being "harder to find", which is not a relevant concern given that redirects exist; likewise, supportive comments such as "that is not what the bill is called" (or asking for the page to be deleted!) didn't move the needle, either. One final argument controlled in this case: consistency. Obamacare and Trump's Muslim ban are redirects, and no response was made as to why the bill's purported common name should win out when the ACA's didn't. This argument was not answered, and so it carries the day.

As an aside, I note with no small surprise that apparently we do not have an article on the bill itself. That... seems like a much more important task than debating the name of a secondary article about a company's reaction to the bill. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Disney and Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill → Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557 – relevant discussion in this section

As you may know the House Bill 1557: Parental Rights in Education[1] is (commonly) referred to by various media outlets, from PBS to CNN, as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Given that this is a encyclopedia and not a media website, I suggest to do the following:

Save/Copy the contents of this page and create a new one called "Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557" (or the name that Antony-22 has suggested) and then delete this page.

I will wait a bit for some input before proposing a deletion.

Kind regards,

References

  1. ^ "HB 1557: Parental Rights in Education - The Florida State Senate". The Florida State Senate. Retrieved 2 April 2022.

Locaf1985 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding you're suggesting that this page should be called "Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557" rather than it's current name, as the only change that should happen with this article? In that case, there is no reason to delete this article and create a new page. One can just move this one. But I would recommend against it. While the bill itself might be known as "House Bill 1557" or "Parental Rights in Education", Wikipedia is known for going by the common name of various topics, rather than using the official names. Some examples—that also relate to LGBT topics—include the Hungarian anti-LGBT law (rather than "Amendments to the Child Protection Act, the Family Protection Act, the Act on Business Advertising Activity, the Media Act and the Public Education Act") and also the Russian gay propaganda law (rather than the federal law "for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values"). --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is my suggestion. I have no objections to the contents of this articles.
I would still argue for the name change.
The pieces of legislation regarding the articles you cited as examples are, unlike this bill from Florida, quite long so it makes sense to shorten those I suppose.
However, this bills name is still relatively short and I would, generally speaking, recommend that for the sake of this article being encyclopedic we should cite the bill by its factual name.
Kind regards, Locaf1985 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name is misleading and bogus. The word gay isnt mentioned in the bill although I wouldnt mind at all. BritishToff (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's rather obvious Wikipedia's leftist editors prefer to use disparaging names for bills pushing for common decency while using euphemisms ('pro-choice') for leftist murder of the unborn. This should ALL stop. "Don't Say Gay" is a misnomer and pushed solely for propaganda value because the bill doesn't contain that phrase or anything like it. You're destroying Wikipedia's rep (if it has any left) for neutrality by always using perjorative terms for bills the left doesn't like. 47.197.110.4 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose the change. "House Bill 1557" fails to indicate that is a law enforcing discrimination. Per Wikipedia policy: Use commonly recognizable names: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." FDlorida's politicians and judges are not reliable sources, while medias outlets are far more reliable. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. That the HB 1557 is discriminatory is a highly subjective opinion. This is an encyclopedia and the articles name, by not using the actual name, is misleading regarding its relative contents.
2. The Florida legislature is the actual place of origin of this legislation. I put a direct link to the Senate website when I created this section. If that is not a reliable piece of information than I do not know what is.
Thus I will move, for the sake of accuracy and factuality, to change the name of the article. Locaf1985 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don’t Say Gay is not the official name of the bill and is misleading because from what I understand, the bill doesn’t even mention the word “gay” nor is it specifically targeting the LGBT community, since from what I’m hearing, it’s targeting all sexual relationships. Additionally to counter what Dimadick brought up, the page for the Strategic Defense Initiative was referred to as the “Star Wars program” by the media, but the Wikipedia page refers the official name and not the common name implied by the news and local media, so this doesn’t always apply. SlySabre (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is true that the bill doesn't mention the word "gay", it doesn't necessarily have to. Again, using the Russian gay propaganda law as an example, that law doesn't mention the words "gay", "homosexual", "LGBT", or anything of that sort either. Yet that bill is still known as "Russian gay propaganda law", and it's pretty evident that it it targeting specifically the LGBT community. Also, the bill doesn't just refer to sexual orientation (not sexual relationships), but also to gender identity. The latter makes it quite clear that the bill isn't just about sexual relationships, as gender identity has nothing to do with who one is attracted to or their sexual liasions. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m still not convinced that the article needs changed to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. If what your saying is true, then yes, I guess it would be targeting the LGBTQ+ community, but it’s still not the official name. Like I said, Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was referred to as the Star Wars program by the public but was not officially titled that. Regardless, I don’t see a reason for it not to be retitled to House Bill 1557. Using the more popular name in the media isn’t always effective on Wikipedia. Another example of this is Grogu, a Star Wars character who is commonly referred to as “Baby Yoda” by fans. SlySabre (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the proposed move. "Don't Say Gay" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME for this bill. Looking through the article title policy, a change to "House Bill 1557" would reduce recognizability, precision, and naturalness; negligibly improve conciseness; and I'm not sure about consistency. The topic specific naming guideline, WP:NCGAL, also emphasizes that we should use common names for legislation. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the other two editors opposing the name change:
    A lot of people use Wikipedia as their first source of information on a number of topics, including current affairs.
    I do not have to say it again but this bill is not called the "Don't Say Gay" bill. As an encyclopedia should we not support factual information and not push ideological and highly subjective opinions.
    • By opposing this name change one quite simply supports, in general terms, misinformation instead of supporting people in wanting to inform themselves on topics backed by facts. Pushing political narratives has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.
    Also those are policies and not the bylaws of how one must edit Wikipedia. Since you seem to like to make use of such policies here is one WP:COMMON.
    In other words: Please use your common sense.
    Kind regards
    Locaf1985 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the name change. Primarily because Wikipedia has a policy of using common names. Regarding this, a quick Google search show's that the bill's official name as "HB 1557 bill" and "HB 1557" brings up at best 100.000 results. "Parental Rights in Education" only brings up about 400.000. Conversely, "Don't Say Gay" brings up over 10 million results. It's clear that the bill's common name of "Don't Say Gay" far surpasses any other legal or official name. Furthermore, given the contents of the bill, the effects it will have, as well as the discussions that have taken place regarding it, "Dont'Say Gay" makes it easier for readers to quickly understand what the bill is about, rather than using "HB 1557". --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read WP:NPOVNAME, regarding non-neutral but common names? Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. This is the same reason Executive Order 13769 is not called "Trump's Muslim ban". Endwise (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that was my thought too. If it was changed to the proposed name, then no one would find the page... and it would lead to further confusion. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By Wikipedia forcing leftist propaganda names for official gov. bills you are the ones MAKING the false name the 'common' one- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because the left dreamed up a perjorative name doesn't mean that is the de facto name. The admins trying to keep "DSG" are acting in bad faith to push a political agenda. The Russian "anti-gay" article should be changed as well. Even "Obamacare", the most widely known name for that bill is not the title of the article. Be consistent in your bias. 47.197.110.4 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a name used by various media outlets. Its not a "leftist propaganda name," whatever the heck that means. Reliable sources are used on here and per what PanagiotisZois says above, it is clearly the common name by a long shot. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the proposed move. The suggested title fails to cover that the law legalizes persecution and uses an "official" name that nobody uses but the politicians themselves. Dimadick (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you expand on the "persecution" that this bill makes possible? Because that is quite a statement, especially without any source or explanation.
    Your opposition to this name change does not have much merit if you just loge such an allegation against the lawmakers that proposed this bill and cannot explain or back it up. Locaf1985 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Legalizes persecution? Huh? What are you talking about? Endwise (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only leftist activists call it that name, not "everybody". The overwhelming majority of Floridians and Americans support the bill and they certainly do not refer to it as the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Twitter is not the real world, howevermuch you'd like it to be. 47.197.110.4 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Don't Say Gay" bill is a faulty and partisan nickname thats been made by the bills opponent. The title is practically misinformation. We should stick to the facts and remain neutral, only describing this by it's official title. Facts trump WP:COMMONNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read WP:COMMONNAME? Because it says the opposite. --Pokelova (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What he said is in line the exceptions to using the common name laid out in WP:NPOVTITLE. Endwise (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NPOVNAME: Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. The title is a nickname that only opponents of the bill use, which is quite clearly non-neutral: the actual name of the bill itself is a far, far, far more encyclopedic alternative. For similar reasons, we didn't call Executive Order 13769 "Muslim ban" or "Trump's Muslim ban", even though that is actually a more commonly used nickname. Endwise (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is going to find the article with the proposed name? If we keep it at its current name, it won't lead to confusion among users. The proposed name is clunky and is not workable as a title. Historyday01 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we direct this articles current name to the proposed one once the name has been changed? Locaf1985 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about that, because I don't support the name change. Historyday01 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do people find "Obamacare?" Who the heck knows the official name of that bill? And yet the page name is the "Affordable Patients Whatever", not Obamacare. Funny how perjorative labels for conservative issues take precedence while leftist issues get squish names like "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion". 47.197.110.4 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Affordable Care Act. Maybe not as known as the name Obamacare but still very well known. To everyone except you I guess. --Pokelova (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just checked and Obamacare is a redirect for the Affordable Care Act, so their comment doesn't make sense. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Don't Say Gay" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME of the "House Bill 1557". I don't see how WP:NPOVNAME applies here. Not only does it says that titles that use words we generally avoid, considered non-neutral, are allowed when they are the common name, it also states that the two exceptions are for slogans that are unlikely to be remembered in the future or colloquialisms that are not obvious. "Don't Say Gay" doesn't fall under either of those two exceptions. "House Bill 1557" is not more obvious than its current common name, nor is "Don't Say Gay" unlikely to be connected to this event in the future. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 03:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People have been calling it the "Don't Say Gay" bill because it is generally referred to it by media organizations (in quotation marks given that it is not the bills actual name).
    I do not understand why we want to support a political insinuation regarding this bill.
    Common names are mainly useful to for recognition as well in cases of propaganda, per my understanding of the policy.
    The common name given currently by a number of news outlets however directly goes against the WP:NPOVNAME policy.
    As you cited there are two exceptions that argue against the use of such non-neutral common names.
    The title of this article is not in accordance with the second exception.
    To quote the second exception: "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"
    1. We obviously have a far more encyclopedic alternative: the actual name of the bill
    2. We are an encyclopedia. We as the editors of this freely accessible encyclopedia should be making factual and neutral information available to everyone. The title of the article is quite subjective and no where near being neutral.
    Wikipedia has no paywall. No monetary interest in selling papers or online subscriptions. This is a free encyclopedia.
    If we cannot provide the readers of this site with non-biased and fact-based information then what are we doing?
    The title of this article obscures the bills relative contents and from the start imposes the view of the bills critics on the readers of this article.
    For those interested in informing yourself to get a better understanding of the bill: here is a link to its text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF) and a link to its summary (https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2022/html/2825).
    Kind Regards Locaf1985 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NPOVNAME. "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following ... Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". In this case, House Bill 1557 is the neutral encyclopedic name of the bill. 158.121.180.32 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This proposed name is clunky and will be hard for users to find the content they are looking for if the page name is changed. I have to fully agree with the arguments of Locaf1985, PanagiotisZois, Firefangledfeathers,Isabelle, and Dimadick, as "Don't Say Gay" bill IS the common name. If you asked someone what the "House Bill 1557" they would have no idea what you are talking about, but if you called the "Don't Say Gay" bill, they would understand. Not sure why the OP is considering deleting the page, as that doesn't make a lick of sense. As such, I have to fully disagree with 158.121.180.32, Endwise, SlySabre, and BritishToff, all of whose arguments I would say are definitely wrongheaded. Historyday01 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The OP, Locaf1985, literally contradicts himself by saying "As you may know the House Bill 1557: Parental Rights in Education...is (commonly) referred to by various media outlets, from PBS to CNN, as the "Don't Say Gay" bill" then says that the name should be changed. If that is the common name, which it is, then why is this whole discussion necessary? Why does the page need to be deleted and moved to a new page entitled "Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557". Such a deletion would run afoul of Wikipedia rules in more ways than one. The name is encyclopedic and should stay in place. The name of this page should not be altered. Furthermore, the page name does not violate WP:NPOVNAME as it is the common name as accepted by reliable sources, fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL. The page's current name should be retained per WP:POVNAMING: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It appears that the OP did not read this rule. Historyday01 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly have argued for a name change. Not sure what you are getting at.
There is nothing inherently (and pretty much logically) encyclopedic about the name. There is a good reason why it is in quotation marks. It is an political opinion and not a matter of fact. I would argue that this is rather obvious.
This is also quite clearly a neutrality issue. I have cited the relevant policie(s) incase you did not see.
Maybe re-read all what I have written. Thank you.
Kind regards Locaf1985 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that you stated that it is commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill by "various media outlets, from PBS to CNN" which would fulfill the requirement that names of pages be based on reliable sources, as those media outlets count as reliable sources. I am aware that those who support the bill do not like the name and have argued against it (even though they have proliferated it in their own media from what I've read in the past), but it has become the common name. I would argue that per WP:POVNAMING the current name can still be used as reliable sources show it to be the common name, even though some might regard such a name as biased. I wouldn't mind "Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557" being added as a redirect to the page, but the page's name should remain at its current name. Historyday01 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum to my above comment, the name ""Don't Say Gay" Bill" has been generally accepted by media outlets, like Teen Vogue, NBC News, Texas Tribune, Columbus Dispatch, Newsweek, CBS News, Independent, Patch, Orlando Weekly, Cleveland.com, FOX7, KENS5, KUNC, ABC, Forbes, NPR, The Hill, The Guardian, New York Times, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today, NY Daily News, Billboard, The Verge, AP, Washington Post, CTV News, CNBC, Deadline, Time, and BBC News. And that's just the ones I could find within a 15-minute search. I could even add conservative outlets too, and they even use the name too, even if they disagree with it, from what I have observed. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please differentiate between "generally accepted" and reliable". I am not sure what you are trying tot tell me.
Also:
We are not writing op-eds or news articles. This is not USA Today or the New York Post.
I do not think I need to explain how an encyclopedia works.
I support mentioning that this bill is commonly referred to, especially by critics, as the "Don't Say Gay" bill that, but putting it in the title of the article is just plane and simply misleading, non-neutral and just not factual.
Kind regards Locaf1985 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment doesn't make sense. As I have said before, per WP:POVNAMING, the current title is acceptable. What matters is that we are using the generally accepted and common name. As such, the title complies with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCGAL, and WP:NPOVNAME. That is what the title to this article does. Calling the page with title you propose does NOT help users and will lead to further confusion. All of the sources I listed above are reliable sources, and since we follow reliable sources in terms of naming pages on here, the current page name is acceptable even though critics call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Even if I said that "Don't Say Gay" bill is a "colloquialism", which it isn't, the title you have proposed is not an acceptable 'encyclopedic alternative" as it is far too clunky to be the title of an article and it will lead to confusion among people wanting to learn about this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: “Endwise, SlySabre, and BritishToff, all of whose arguments I would say are definitely wrongheaded.”
There is no need for name calling with “definitely wrongheaded” in a Wikipedia proposal. See WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) since this is a policy that ALL users are encouraged to follow on the site. SlySabre (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said that your argument ("As such, I have to fully disagree with 158.121.180.32, Endwise, SlySabre, and BritishToff, all of whose arguments I would say are definitely wrongheaded") is wrongheaded, not that you are wrongheaded as a person, just to be clear. And as such, that is NOT name-calling. Not sure why you would think it is name-calling, because it clearly is NOT. Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, saying that another side to a proposal is wrong is still very much rude. Your free to have your own opinion, but please, do not put someone down for theirs. You can argue either way that “Don’t Say Gay” or “House Bill 1557/Parental Rights in Education” works, and that there isn’t any definitive right or wrong answer, but as always, this will more than likely be determined by the majority opinion on the matter. There’s a difference between backing up your opinion while listening and considering others instead of thrashing, pointing fingers (especially when you repeated our names), and pinning us down by saying that we’re wrong for having an opinion, which is essentially no more or less what you are implying by saying that the rest of us are “wrongheaded”. Again, there really is no wrong opinion, which is why we’re having the discussion to begin with, since if there was a “right side”, we wouldn’t have had it to begin with and the page would’ve already been moved by now without some sort of “formal” discussion, and as we all know, there IS indeed a discussion going on, but rather unfortunately, it’s not being done in a formal matter, which is what I wish we could’ve had, but sadly, it’s gotten to the point of calling people out, name calling, and, as mentioned earlier, putting them down for their opinions. Why can’t we just respect what others have to say without having to get into, from what your referring to this as, an “argument”? SlySabre (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fine. I don't spend that much time on here, as I've severely cut back the time I spend on here as opposed to the absurd amount of time I spent on here in 2021 and 2020, and I don't have time to write paragraphs upon paragraphs to bolster my point, and I already have another comment, beginning with the words "Update: The OP" in the above discussion which expands on my reasoning, if you wish to respond to that. The other users I mentioned who have opposed this name change have made stronger comments than mine and my comment is only in support of them. That is it. I'm not pointing fingers, putting anyone down, or doing anything like that, so I'm not sure where you get that idea. I would have to argue that in certain cases, there are "wrong opinion[s]" depending on the issue being discussed. I don't understand why you are making a big deal out of this and I really don't want to get caught up in any sort of drama. Historyday01 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you editing the comment to clarify this. I don’t see any reason either to continue arguing back and forth as it doesn’t accomplish much for me either nor does it give me time to do better things. I would also like to apologize if I sounded paranoid by all of what I brought up to you specifically and nobody else since like you said, some of the other people here have made stronger statements, although for context, I specifically addressed you since it was the most recent comment I read, although you do bring up a good point about that since I wasn’t exactly being fair by not nitpicking at the rest of the replies here. SlySabre (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that, in terms of not accomplishing anything from going back and forth. I think that those who have opposed this name change seem to be rational to me. With that, its time to watch some more anime! Historyday01 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better WP:DENY. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 03:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editors pushing for the "DSG" nomenclature are trying to push an agenda, pure and simple by smearing the bill as bigoted when it is not. The name is not accurate and was created as a political ploy. Why should wikipedia parrot left-wing propaganda? By Wiki jumping on the bandwagon and misnaming the bill it helps reinforce the left's narrative about the bill, which, btw, is totally false. It discriminates against no one and is a common sense bill to keep 'groomer' teachers from pushing their gay/trans agenda on kindergarteners. This entire discussion is slightly disgusting by the vehemence of some editors to spread a false narrative to help spread gay/trans propaganda, literally. 47.197.110.4 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Has to be the funniest comment I've seen in this whole discussion due to the absurdity of the whole comment, with your fly-in Wikipedia editing for a clearly single-issue/single-purpose account. I recognize that the "Don't Say Gay" is a contentious name, but it is used by a majority of reliable sources, primarily news organizations which are not left-leaning in the slightest (in fact conservative sites like National Review, Washington Examiner, The Telegraph etc., end up using the "Don't Say Gay" name for the bill as well while preferring the bill's official name, further establishing the name ""Don't Say Gay" bill" as a common name for the law) and it should be the page name. Its that simple. If the OP had chosen a less clunky name, I would totally go for it, but I am purely thinking of how people will find information. If the name the OP wants is chosen, it will lead to further confusion. Historyday01 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@47.197.110.4: Based on your IP address, it's quite clear that you live in Florida. One could easily accuse you of having a right-wing agenda. Of being a homophobe who thinks this bill is a good thing. Someone who probably wouldn't mind "groomer" teachers pushing their Republican or Christian propaganda to children. But this isn't how Wikipedia works. Regardless of political affiliations, Don't Say Gay is the bill's common name, which is used even by right-wing publications and news sources. It may not be the name that is primarily used in those sources, but it is still present. And PS, your reference to LGBT issues as "gay/trans propaganda" is "slightly disgusting", if we're being honest, and very much not helping build your argument. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to agree with you completely. Their comments really are not helping their argument at all, not in the slightest. Even the right-wing publications use the name, even after shaking their fists at it, causing it to be even more a common name despite their support for the bill. And by this point "Don't Say Gay" is the common name of the bill. Historyday01 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Of being a homophobe who thinks this bill is a good thing." The possibility that this is someone with a conflict of interest due to employment or political activism did cross my mind, but so far he/she is mostly repeating anti-gay bullshit. Trolls tend to do this as well, and I have had to delete comments like this from a number of talkpages in recent days. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they really are mostly repeating that stuff, unfortunately. Deleting such comments makes complete sense. Historyday01 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with redirect. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the name change to comply with WP:NPOVNAME. I've seen critical news articles refer to it as the "Don't Say Gay" bill and supporting articles call it the "Anti-Grooming Bill". I think using the official title is the best way to remain neutral in this situation. BaomoVW (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But, the official title is not the common name... and we should stick with the common name Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The official common name in the Florida senate is the Parental Rights in Education bill. So if it is necessary to use a common name and keep a neutral point of view then why not rename it Disney and Florida's "Parental Rights in Education" bill or something like that? That satisfies both WP:COMMONNAME & WP:NPOVNAME and would be the most accurate title. BaomoVW (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would also be a non-neutral name and while "Don't Say Gay" is arguably a controversial name, it IS the common name ("Parental Rights in Education" is NOT a common name), a I've noted earlier in this discussion on this page. As such, the current name should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Florida's House Bill 1557" is a neutral name but not common and "Florida's Parental Rights in Education" is a common name but considered less neutral. However being the official title of the bill they are the most accurate and encyclopedic which after all is the goal here. All unofficial variations of the name should redirect to the page using the official name. I appreciate the points you've raised but continue to Support the name change. BaomoVW (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still tend to believe that the current name could be kept and worry that changing it to Florida's House Bill 1557 could further bias on Wikipedia and lead to less readership of the page, as people may have more trouble finding it. Historyday01 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to keep restating your opinions. Per the policy Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process: "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. " Dimadick (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with redirect. This is a slam-dunk, and it's hard to credit the idea that using a partisan moniker is consistent with Wikipedia's POV policy. I note that the LGBT Rights in Florida page quite properly does not use "Don't Say Gay" in its section headline. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. We should be avoiding the use of propaganda terms in article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How is "Parental Rights in Education" not a propaganda term? It is a censorship law that intentionally criminalizes the speech of both teachers and students, and allows parents to directly sue teachers. It has nothing to add to parental rights. Of some concern is also that law's text provides that the parents may demand access to information that their child is withholding from them (the law states that school district personnel are prohibited to "encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information." (see here) Discussions of the law have pointed that the effect may be the legalization of outing by school personnel. Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The proposal is to move it to House Bill 1557, not "Parental Rights in Education", so I don't understand this comparison. Official titles of bills can often be persuasive or misleading (i.e. a "propaganda term" like you said), and while there is a substantial difference between an official title and similarly propagandized snarky criticism ("Don't Say Gay"), the proposal is to move it to House Bill 1557. Endwise (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem with the proposal is that it makes the article HARDER to find and will lead to confusion. The alternative is to merge the whole section into an article on the law itself. "Don't Say Gay" whether you like it or not HAS become the common name. Historyday01 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. one could argue that given the media attention the phrase has, it would in fact make it EASIER to find. Metropod (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to "Don't Say Gay bill" I oppose the current name and the proposed rename target, and instead support simply titling this article as "Don't Say Gay bill" as the common name. Although Disney has been a player in this bill, and although it is in Florida state, this bill is bigger than both Disney and Florida. Its common name is simply "Don't Say Gay" without further descriptions.
I get why this article should have a common name. I get that this is a proposed Florida state law. I get that Disney funded something to do with this, and has been giving public statements either or both in support or in opposition to this bill. But even if Disney funded and supported this, what source called this Disney's bill or the Disney bill? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though it doesn't affect my vote on this RM, I agree with you that there should be an article about the bill. There's been support for that on this talk page, at #Expand/move and at Talk:LGBT rights in Florida#HB 1557 split proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. I think there is definitely enough sources and discussion to make an article on the bill. I'll comment in that discussion to that effect. I see stuff about Disney and this bill often, but wouldn't mind this whole article to be merged into an article on the bill, if that's what you are proposing Bluerasberry. Historyday01 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – that is not what the bill is called. cookie monster 755 21:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the !votes to that effect above. As WP:NPOVNAME says, In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida House Bill 1557[edit]

Now an article for the bill itself exists.

I think a lot of confusion would have been averted if the bill article existed first, then later this article for commentary on the bill were written. In any case good to have both now. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree. Glad to see that that article links to this article.--Historyday01 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now a page for the Reedy Creek Improvement Act has been created. Historyday01 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the other companies section again, if someone wants to catalog the responses from various companies, other than Disney, they should do it there on *Florida House Bill 1557. This is an article about Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to include them as it gives more context. And besides, its only three lines of text. I don't see any issue with including it. None at all. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that is nice, but it makes more sense to add the material to the article about Bill 1577. The number of lines of text has nothing to do with thoughtfully organizing encyclopedic content. None at all. 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm saying that if the section was perhaps a few paragraphs, then I'd be fine with it being in another article, but since it is such a small part of the article, it doesn't do anyone harm in including it. Besides, I'm not sure where in the Florida House Bill 1557 article it would be included. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's changed stance on the bill missing.[edit]

A paragraph leads with "In response to Disney's changed stance on the bill", but there's no mention of Disney changing their stance. (how? why?) A paragraph appears to be missing. 142.68.92.227 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional sentence fragment: "including condemnation of the legislation by Chapek and other Disney leaders," right after that. That provides enough about the changed stance, I'd say. Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney_and_Florida%27s_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act&oldid=1206983410"