Talk:Section 28

Removing extremely misleading claim

From the lede: "As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision"

Well, of course not. The only reason I can think of for including this statement (which doesn't seem to appear in other articles about civil legal matters) would be to suggest that the law was entirely symbolic. But civil law can be enforced through civil proceedings. Were there any legal proceedings brought under Section 28? The article doesn't say, but this line seems to be trying to suggest that such a thing would not have been possible.

I know that this formulation has frequently been employed by former supporters of the law seeking to minimise its impact, but surely that kind of thing belongs in a section about people's views and claims about the law, not in a factual summary of what the law did? I'll remove it for now: if anything it should be replaced by information about whether any civil legal proceedings were brought - unfortunately I can't find anything about this. 86.29.206.96 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There was an actual prosecution in Glasgow in 2000, where a woman took the council to court for funding LGBT and AIDS prevention groups . Were there any others? If so, would be good to add a section on legal actions (successful or otherwise) under the act. Zahara k (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Section 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Jill Knights Quote needed

-- I'm Brand new here and joined because of this issue --

There is an issue with the Jill Knight comment retrieved from Hansard:

Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? ... I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family". That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped.[21]

The quote of the line from the Gay Manifesto does not exist. No where in the Gay Manifesto does it state that they aim for the abolition of the family.

To leave this quote as it is suggests, 'the aim of the abolition of the family', is a fact.

The tone of the Gay Manifesto, which was written by the Gay Liberation Front (1969-1974), was the aim of the EVOLUTION of the idea of Gender, Family and Sexuality across society to become broader and more inclusive, along with the removal of Stereotyping of Gender Roles.

Placing this in context, by 1969, for more families it was becoming common and necessary for both parents to work. The idea of Female equals homemaker and Male equals breadwinner across all classes was being undermined by the economic changes in Society and the Women's Liberation Movement.

My apologies for not being more concise - but Jill Knight's comment needs to be rebutted(?) with fact for the sake of transparency, accuracy and fairness. Being a newbie here, it would not be right for me even to begin to attempt it. I will leave it to the more experienced :-)

GLF Manifesto

GLF

Atomicman33 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

UK Queer as Folk quotation

I fixed an incorrect quotation, see: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Section_28&type=revision&diff=1115620611&oldid=1114859892

Original version had 'needs citation', sorry but I don't know how to do the cite. I got it from watching the episode on Netflix (Its about 2m 45s into S01E08) and found a script at https://www.taicishe.com/episode-2663-season-1-8-episode-8?page=1 but I don't know if thats a good source. Chernobacon (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Political opposition

I do not necessarily dispute recent edit https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Section_28&oldid=1163500237 about lack of opposition from opposition parties, but this needs citations including a good citation on Jack Cunningham's view. Can anyone find a source? There may be something in this OUP chapter if anyone has institutional access or a copy of the book https://academic.oup.com/book/11547/chapter-abstract/160353541?redirectedFrom=fulltext Rhagfyr (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes to article

Hi there! I'm a university student and I've been given an assignment that involves editing a Wikipedia page of my choice, and writing a reflective essay on my experiences. My proposed changes for this article essentially involve improving its quality so that it's closer to B-Class quality than C-Class on the content assessment scale. This would involve doing the following:

Making the article more concise overall (especially the Background and Political Response sections).

The removal of some sections - I personally think the In Retrospect and Cultural References sections could be removed without detracting from the whole article.

Removing unnecessary external links - for example, Stonewall and OutRage! are both linked twice at different points throughout the article.

Checking that all internal/external links are still in working order.

Removing excessive citations.

Before I make any changes, I just wanted to check if anyone else has any other suggestions on how the article could be improved? I'm also open to other people's opinions on whether specific sections should be removed altogether, as I'd rather collaborate with other editors instead of making several changes without any warning. Thank you! Itssymbiotic (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with cultural references is really important (so have put them back in), as an encyclopedic article it gives the reader pointers to depictions in literature/film etc to explore the issues further. I don't particularly see why the in retrospect section would be unhelpful either? Is there a WP policy on multiple internal links? Rhagfyr (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your response. Unhelpful may not necessarily be the right word for how I'd describe the 'In Retrospect' section, but I do think the article as a whole could benefit from being made more concise (in line with the content assessment scales). As I mentioned on my initial post, I thought that removing the two sections that I named would contribute to making the article more concise, without having any negative impact on the article as a whole. But with this being said, I can understand your POV on the Cultural References section. Maybe some of the information that was included in the 'In Retrospect' section could be added to the 'Political Response' section instead - what are your thoughts on that?

In answer to your question on multiple internal links, I was not previously aware of any specific policies but I've since looked at the style guide out of curiosity. From a reader's perspective, personally I'd find it frustrating if a term was hyperlinked every single time it was mentioned while reading (this is just my personal opinion, but it seems to be consistent with the suggestions made on the style guide). With the first mention of Stonewall for example, a reader can access the internal link if they want to know more about Stonewall. They'll then know enough about what Stonewall does for any further mentions of it to make sense to them, without the need to be signposted elsewhere again. Itssymbiotic (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)