Talk:Section 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section 28 is currently a good article nominee. An editor has reviewed the article, and left comments on the review page. However, this editor has requested a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject, to gain further consensus that this article meets the good article criteria. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to revise the article based on the first reviewer's comments.

^{Date: 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)}

LGBT Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Draft version

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? --Axon

[edit] Use of bold

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"). -- 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

--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 :) -- Axon

I'm assuming this would be the British Parliament? How UK-centric. -- 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. -- Axon

hehe ... you're right about Americocentric articles. But the way to deal with that is to un-America ... er... you get the idea :-) -- 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)

[edit] 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? - 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 this one of Ian McKellen from his website [1] which is of course copyrighted by him.

The reason I want an image is that I'd quite like this article to achieve 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? - 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 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. --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?--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. --Axon 17:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead section does not currently mention chronology at all. I came here on the link from Paragraph 175. I read the lead. I can guess second half of 20th century by the photo, but that's all I gleaned quickly. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It does mention in the first paragraph that Section 28 was included as part of the 1988 Local Authority Act, but I agree it could probably be made clearer. I will try and add some more infomation but do you have any suggestions? --Axon 10:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates of any modifications, date it ceased to be in effect. See Paragraph 175 for a model. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

The article says

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal.

FWIW I'm glad we're rid of Section 28; my purpose here is just to discuss whether the above is NPOV...

I find it hard to believe that failing to portray homosexuality as abnormal would in itself be interpreted by a court as promoting homosexuality, and (though this isn't an issue I've folowed closely -- please correct me if I'm wrong) I was under the impression that no prosecution was brought under this section, so there is no case law to establish otherwise.

My understanding is that the assertion made in the article is far from established (and quite probably not true) but that the main practical problem with Section 28 (other than the fact that it is offensive and homophobic) is that of the chilling effect; the pragmatic need by councils to stay clear of possible legal grey areas almost certainly had the effect described. But I'm not sure that the quoted paragraph relects that fact; it implies that it is accepted that it was a legal requirement to portray homosexuality as abnormal.

Hence my questioning of NPOV. Yes, the legislation is offensive, but I'm not convinced it is accurately described by the quoted paragraph...

I don't claim to be particularly familliar with this subject, please feel free to rebutt this...

(Edited slightly) Roy Badami 01:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Roy, thanks for taking this to the talk page first.

It depends upon the interpretation of "promote". For a great many people at the time protraying homosexuality as normal was (and sometimes still is) considered to be "promoting" homosexuality. The inspiration for Section 28 was a book that did just this: portrayed a homosexual family as normal (see Jenny lives with Eric and Martin). This was generally considered to be it's purpose by both sides (see article references for more information).

As is mentioned in the article, Section 28 was never successfully used in a court of law and its effects were only ever "chilling" - that is it's effects were not legal but "administrative" as various schools complied to the new legislation. Fortunately, we'll never know exactly what Section 28 covered. Neverthless, it's stated purpose was clearly to prohibit distribution of material that portrayed homosexual family relations as normal so I don't think the above is a strawman at all.

With that in mind, perhaps the sentence could be revised, but I believe it should remain, perhaps as:

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay family relationships as normal.

If you have any evidence that contradicts this interpretation I'd be interested to know. --Axon 11:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: From Knight, the "mastermind" behind Section 28: 2The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them.". From this quote (in the article) the intention of Section 28 would seem to be no to stiffle discussion of homosexuality as normal, but to stiffle discussion of homosexuality at all. This link to the BBC site[2] would also seem to back up this interpretation. --Axon 11:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the history of this Roy Badami 15:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Almost all polls"

From the article: "Almost all polls conducted in 2003 at the time the repeal process was underway showed that most people supported keeping section 28." This is incredibly vague and uncited. If someone cannot back it up with a solid citation, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I've modified this somewhat to be somewhat less assertive and attribute the claim to supporters. I think the claim - that most polls supported Section 28 - should be backed up with some concrete evidence otherwise this whole sentence should be deleted. Certainly, Souter's privately financied poll demonstrated support for Section 28 but I would be interested to know what other polls were carried out in this area. --Axon 09:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I marked my last edit as being "POV" when I meant to write NPOV. Just to confirm that I'm not actively trying to add POV to this article :) --Axon 09:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Section 28 Grammatically Incorrect?

I removed a paranthesis remark in the starting section that notes that section 28 is gramattically incorrect. I added this note myself after reading it somewhere online but am now unsure if it is correct. Any references or verification would be useful here. Axon 09:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what a load of bias bullshit

Excuse my bad language, I'm sure you'll edit this just as good as you have this article, but this is one of the most one sided load of left wing rubbish on this entire encyclopedia. Wiki is nothing more than partisan tabloid trash these days and such a shame it used to be a beacon of neautrility and therefore a great resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 20 OCt 2005

If you would like to point out which parts of the article you feel are biased I am sure we can neauralise it somewhat. --Spacepostman 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked that a nation which has always prided itself on being open and tolerant would not only debate but legislate a bill which clearly discriminates against a fairly large minority group. Shame on you, Britain! Legislation such as this fits the society of the 19th century; I am shocked that such laws were in place in the U.K. as late as 2003. Thank goodness saner heads prevailed and the bill was repealed, though not without opposition from hypocritical Christians (love thy brother, yeah, right).--142.161.180.125 23:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think overall this is not a bad page. I've edited the Opposition section very slightly to make it appear less POV. I hope people approve. I think the phrase 'loaded, homophobic assumption' (though I agree with the sentiment) is somewhat over-emotive. I also think that, strictly speaking, the assumption in question implied an association of homosexuality with paedophilia rather than equating them. After all, the perceived threat was far more moral than physical. I also think a reference is needed for the polls mentioned, particularly as they contrast with Souter's (admittedly somewhat disingenuous) poll. ----Garik 18:13, 6 May 2006 (BST)

[edit] Labour voted for it?

According to this article, from an old copy of the Sunday Herald:

"The origins of Section 28 lie in the dark days of the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism. But it is not only the Tories who must take the blame for it. Not many people know this, but Labour voted for Clause 28 in the committee stage of the 1986 local government bill."

Now, if that's true, that's pretty significant, and needs to go into the article. Does anyone have a way of verifying it? Maccoinnich 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that Labour did, as is suggested, vote for it at the committee stage of the Local Government Bill 1986, since Section 2A was only added to the Local Government Act 1986 by Section 28 the Local Government Act 1988. IP 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article does not conform to NPOV policies.

I couldn't see what could be done to this:

Evidence was emerging that, by excluding gay support groups and gagging teachers from protecting victims of homophobic bullying, Section 28 was actually endangering vulnerable children. --- Implies section 28 stopped these things, includes original research
- Actuallly, it says quite the opposite of what you assert it said. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Section 28 came with a loaded, homophobic assumption that homosexuals were inherently dangerous to children, wrongly equating homosexuality with paedophilia. --- Original research
- Seems to me like stating the obvious. But I agree that finding a citation of someone asserting this would be good. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only did Section 28 prevent the promotion of homosexuality, it appeared to give a legal reason to oppose it in schools and other forums. -- Needs citation

The fact that Section 28 was law gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia. -- Implies law is homophobic - violates NPOV issues
- Are you saying that there is doubt that the law was homophobic? Frankly, I see that as carrying NPOV beyond the point of reason. One can perhaps object to the term homophobia, but it seems pretty clear that if you accept the term at all, it applies here. Do you also reject the term racism? Anti-Semitism? If there were a similar law about Blacks or Arabs or Jews would you object to these terms in describing it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Polls indicated widespread acceptance of homosexuality and indicate that parents would like their children to be taught tolerance for LGBT people. -- Needs citation

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.38.69 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

The anon who made the remarks above followed them with this series of edits. This strikes me as using NPOV as a weapon rather than a tool. I won't reiterate my remarks above, but I stand by them. - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support reversion of those: appending things like "some people believe" does not make something NPOV. Joe D (t) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment?

Precisely which Local Government Act did 'section 28' amend? It can't be the 1988 Act, for if the Local Government Act 1988 page is to be believed, it was that Act which introduced the provision. --Danward 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found out and changed the article accordingly. --Danward 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give me the video

Section 28 became law on May 24, 1988. The night before, lesbians protested, abseiling (rappelling) into Parliament and famously invading the BBC's Six O'Clock News[4]. One managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.

I demand footage of lesbians attacking the Six O'Clock News! --Ultra Megatron 02:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Begging for some citations

From the article:

The spread of AIDS had also brought about widespread fear, much of which was directed at gays and bisexuals who made up three quarters [3] of the HIV-infected community. It seemed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair sentiments toward the homosexual community was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed as the promotion of homosexualism.

The citation is a blind URL to a Macromedia Flash site; I assume it is a citation for "three quarters"; I didn't have the patience to let it load. Can someone please fill this out to a proper citation? But then the paragraph goes on into pretty strange territory: "It seemed [to whom] that sexual orientation [note the claim of orientation, not behavior here] played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair [conversely: unfair in whose view] sentiments toward the homosexual community [don't we normally say "gay community"?] was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed [according to what source? Presumably true, but should be cited] were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed [similarly: according to what source?] as the promotion of homosexualism [a truly bizarre word, truly begging for citation]. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But not selective citations!

It is looking for citations, but adding the requirement to certain lines that people don't like the sound of seems a bit daft. The list of reasons for why repeal seemed neccessary seems perfectly reasonable taken as a list - but conversely, of course, POV could demand citations for each line. Unless there is some sort of screaming bias then {{Fact}} tags should not be applied selectively - of course - that's just my view. Stevingtonian 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} isn't just about bias. It is reasonable for an editor to ask for citation on anything he or she doubts. They don't have to question the motivation of the editor who wrote it. I've been known to add {{cn}} (which produces the same request for citation) to my own statements when there was something I couldn't track down. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be bolder in my own edits and add stuff that I know to be true, to articles, and flag them as {{fact}} so somebody can hunt down a source. I didn't think it was a good idea to do that, but now that you mentioned it... Bwrs (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree Jmabel, only comment is that requirement for citations was only on two of the items on a larger list - perhaps more appropriate to request citation at the top of the list for all items? Stevingtonian 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chumbawamba

"The punk rock band Chumbawamba"? A very odd characterization of a band who have done everything from a capella tight harmonies (indeed their song "Homophobia" is a capella) to sample-heavy pop. I'm cutting that odd description. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have altered some things

I've changed the instances of the word 'gay' to the word 'homosexual', the word gay is now, sadly, often used in this context, I feel that wikipedia should not use words incorrectly (for example, if someone described Victoria and David Backham as Chavs in an article it would be changed quite quickly)-GeorgeFormby1

How is this an incorrect use of the word "gay"? To refer to Victoria and David Beckham as chavs would be unacceptable on Wikipedia for quite different reasons. garik 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the word Gay actually means happy, carefree joyous, and just because a few gay rights people and politicians who think that they're being trendy use it to describe homosexuals dosen't mean we should-GeorgeFormby1

That's only what it meant to most English speakers at some point in the history of the word. But like it or not, if someone says person X is gay, most people now interpret that to mean homosexual. Words and their meanings change; there's no authority that decides that word x means y for ever more – it would be ridiculous to follow one even if there was. Just because word x meant meaning y at one point, it doesn't mean that that is any more correct than some later meaning. I take it you don't insist on interpreting the word "nice" only in its 13th century sense, or insist on spelling aluminium and grey as aluminum and gray, because that's how they used to be spelt even in Britain. Why should semantic change be any different? garik 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) PS Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Section 28/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have made some tweaks to the article's POV but overall I think that it is fairly neutral.
On hold pending fixing of dead links and unsourced statements (marked by a previous editor as "{{citation needed}}.")
If these are fixed, will commence with fact-checking. If factual error is present (or the dead links or missing citations are not fixed), will fail; if citations are fixed and facts verify, then most likely will submit for a second opinion from a more seasoned editor.
~~Finally,~~ I assume that the brackets around the text of the Act itself denote repeal? Bwrs (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm clearly missing something-- where are you seeing brackets on that page? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Well, if that page has no brackets, that means either that Section 28 is still in force, or the link to it from the Wikipedia article is incorrectly labelled, as it says "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom." If Section 28 is still in force then I would have no choice but to fail the article; if the link is mislabeled then please fix it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't see any brackets on the page you linked to there, which was a link to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (i.e. Section 28 itself). I think (as a non-lawyer) that there is some confusion on the subject. Section 28 itself was never repealed; to do so would have been pointless because it had one-time application: as the lead paragraph of the article says, it merely amended an existing law, adding a new section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, and it was this section that was repealed. The OPSI text of the 1986 act shows brackets for repeal, but the 1988 page doesn't, which is why I was confused that I thought you'd said it did. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed "moral panic" because the Wikipedia article on the subject indicates that the term denotes a specific point of view. I have replaced it with "major controversy." Bwrs (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article name

I also suggest changing the name of this article to Section 28 (U.K.) or Section 28 (United Kingdom) or Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and then starting a new Section 28 disambiguation page, in consideration of the fact that many countries may have laws with a section numbered 28, and of those, some of them will be notable, particularly if a constitution has a section 28 (as suggested by the dab link at the top). Bwrs (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more sensible to move it only if and when other notable section 28's come up; disambig pages with one link look silly. Larklight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And besides, maybe other parliaments passed a local government act in 1988, so it would need to be Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... Even if there's another notable Section 28 at some point, I think generally where there's one especially famous bearer of a name, they're allowed the plain name with no disambiguation (London is the English and not the Ontarian instance, and Channel 4 is the British broadcaster even though there's also a station in Iran and a shedload of UHF stations in North America which can use the name. (I'm not deliberately coming in and tearing down all your suggestions; I'm just continuing the debate. Please carry on helping improve the article: it's much appreciated.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the DAB link at the top, there is another notable Section 28, and I would argue that a constitutional document would be just as important as a repealed law, if not more so. As for the analogy to channel 4, do I understand correctly that the British channel 4 is a nationwide broadcaster? This would generally be more notable than any of the U.S. VHF channels 4, which are all local or regional.

Anyway, this is my first good article review so I intend to have a second editor check my work before I pass or fail it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifying sources....

[edit] background section

The website linked-to by Footnote #4 is presently inaccessible. I have marked it as a "dead link" until such time as somebody else can either verify that the site is up or provide a different source. It seems that I cannot access many U.K. sites at this time.
The sentence, "[b]ut it was not until 1986 that major controversy arose and widespread protest demonstrations made a major contribution towards the subsequent passing of Section 28" needs an additional footnote. Footnote #5 provides good information, but the third party source cited by that footnote does not directly support the above statement.

[edit] legislative history

The sentence, "[t]he new amendment was also championed by Knight and accepted and defended by Michael Howard, then Minister for Local Government, although it had little to do with the broad remit of the Act, which dealt with the compulsory tendering of school services" is cited to a reference that does not mention Michael Howard by name; however, the reference does support the second half of that sentence.
Footnote #7 displays an error message, "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."

[edit] controversy over applicability

The web page linked-to by Footnote #9 presently displays a "story not found" error. I have marked it as a "dead link".
I have provided an extra inline citaiton to clarify the fact that the quote from the Department for Education and Science and the quote from Jill Knight are taken from the same secondary source.

[edit] political response

The names of individuals mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section are not contained in the source cited. I have duplicated and moved the <ref name="4letter" /> tag next to the names of groups, and have marked the individual names as {{fact|date=June 2008}}.

[edit] repeal

I have changed the discussion of the "Keep the Clause" public-opinion poll to reflect that "slightly less than" one third (31.75%) of the voters responded.
Footnote #17 redirects to the BBC news home page, and the website cited in Footnote #18 seems presently inaccessible.
Footnote #20 points to the home page of the polling company, not to the actual poll results.

[edit] opposition

This section seems to lack inline citations. Please provide citations at least for the statements that have been flagged by other editors as {{citation needed}}, if not for all statements.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this article, and good luck on its promotion. Bwrs (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)