Talk:Section 28 and User talk:Evil Monkey/Archive 3: Difference between pages

Revision as of 17:50, 7 November 2004

Revision as of 06:26, 20 June 2005

Line 1:

{{User talk:Evil Monkey/template}}

''An event mentioned in this article is a [[Template:June 21 selected anniversaries|June 21 selected anniversary]]''

-----

This is a draft version and there is probably a lot wrong with this article. The dates and some of the facts probably need double-checking but I'm fairly confident most of it is fairly accurate. I've strived to be as balanced as possible here but I have to admit I am biased and this may show up in the article. Particularly, the 'Support' section lacks reason for support Section 28 - I had some trouble coming up with reasons so it might be an idea for someone else to add them? --[[User:Axon|Axon]]

----

Looking at the page I find it disturbing to see so many bold words. As far as I understand the style guide (see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]) the subject should be in bold in the first line. After that I think using italics is fully sufficent (the same holde for "Section 2a"). -- [[User:Marco Krohn|mkrohn]] 01:54 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

'':"It prohibited teachers and educational staff from discussing homosexual issues with students for fear of losing state funding"''.

I think this isn't quite as clear as it could be. There was

(apparently) debate as to whether this actually applied in schools. Headteachers and Boards

of Governors were specifically exempt. What was definitely true was that

schools and teachers became confused as to what was actually permitted, and obviously tended to err on the side of caution. I know that is what the

sentence means, but it could be made clearer that it was the confusion,

rather than Section 28 itself. Supporters Section 28 tended

to say that the schools were mistaken, and that was the problem

of the schools, not of Section 28.

The NUT said of this "... While Section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counselling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution." The "albeit wrongly" is interesting.

That does seem to have been a mistake by the drafters

of the section, mind you. The ''intention''

was to effect schools, but it constrained local authorities and not schools.

"Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers," the environment department circular states. "It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality." (Dept for Education and Science statement, 1988).

When Dame Jill Knight heard this, she was somewhat upset (so it was

quite clearly the intention of the section, it was just stupidly done).

"This has got to be a mistake. The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them,"

http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm

http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320

--[[User:Amortize|Amortize]]

:I didn't read all the style-guides: I'll change the other mentions of Section 28 to italic emphasis rather than bold. Sorry to hear you found this "disturbing". Bit of a strong reaction :) -- [[User:Axon|Axon]]

I'm assuming this would be the British Parliament? How UK-centric. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

:Hi Zoe. Didn't realise my article was so UK-centric. In my defense a lot of the articles in Wikipedia are quite Americocentric (for example, [[gay rights]]). When I say [[Parliament]] I generally mean the United Kingdom one, in the same way that when people say [[Congress]] they typically mean the one in Washington. Marco kindly ammended the article

:I'd be interested to know what you thought of my article otherwise. -- [[User:Axon|Axon]]

:: hehe ... you're right about Americocentric articles. But the way to deal with that is to un-America ... er... you get the idea :-) -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 19:34 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

:::Phew! I just got through collating everything I could find on Section 28, nevermind writing a history of gay rights for the UK, or even for the whole world. But it sounds like a challenge and I may well attempt it. 20:56 Mar 27, 2003 (GMT)

----

==Image?==

Would anyone know of an image that could be used for this article? Notable protests? Notable protestors? Scans of gay newspaper covers of the time? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:In my opinion, if we were to have an image (and I am not convinced that it needs one), the ideal one would be either the Six O'Clock News protest or the House of Lords Abseiling protest. There are some images of marches from that time as well - maybe [http://www.mckellan.com/images/0394.jpg this one] of [[Ian McKellen]] from his website [http://www.mckellan.com/] which is of course copyrighted by him.

::The reason I want an image is that I'd quite like this article to achieve [[Wikipedia:Featured Articles|Featured Article]] status, and that pretty much requires a picture to get past [[WP:FAC]] these days. I can't find that image on his site - where is it linked from? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Fair enough, of course since Ian was FA we might suffer from McKellen Overload :) It is linked from [http://www.mckellan.com/galleries/w.htm Galleries - Fotos: 1985-1989] It's about two thirds of the way down with the caption:

:::''1988 With Michael Cashman at the Gay Rights March on Manchester in protest of Section 28, the act outlawing local government funding of any pro-gay activity. ''

:: Has anyone requested permission to use these pictures yet? Any status update? An image would really help this article. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 10:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: I have contacted the owners of the site in question and they seem positive to letting us use the image on our page. I will ask them to send a release statement. Do I need to publish this here in the discussion page?--[[User:Axon|Axon]] 14:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just added the picture to the article with permission from a Keith Stern who responded to emails at mckellen.com. Not sure if this is ready to be a featured article: for starters, it contains a list of bullet points which the FA team don't seem to be too fond of. --[[User:Axon|Axon]] 17:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)