Talk:Kansas SB 180

Please leave the bill text in the article

The wikipedia page has been up for nearly 2 months and there is no defensible reason that the article should not include the actual text of the bill, especially given the fact that the bill is only 1 page long.

If you would like to add weight to the arguments against the bill, please expand the article by providing position assertions and evidence for the statements.

References to gender on this page are not relevant, given that this is a bill about sex as a distinct and independent characteristic from gender. If a section about gender is to be included, it should address foremost how this is relevant to the topic at hand (SB 180). PhenomenonDawn (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

PhenomenonDawn Articles on Wikipedia are not mirror's of a primary source, articles do not verbatim include text of primary sources, instead they are built of secondary and tertiary sources. Specifically relating to the hyperlink, gender assigned at birth the article itself makes clear that it is about sex assignment. Des Vallee (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The revision you are proposing does not meet Wikipedia's standards for Verifiability or Neutral point-of-view.

A primary source is always preferable over secondary or tertiary sources. Including primary sources is not prohibited and in fact gives the most amount of Verifiability. It is incredibly disingenuous to remove from the article the actual text of the bill, in favor of claims about what the bill is saying.

The proposed revision is factually inaccurate, has incorrect grammar, and contains irrelevant citations.

• "...bill which bans any identification of any gender..." | Inaccurate; the bill makes no reference to gender

• "...despite federal recognition of transgender people..." | Inaccurate/misleading; the bill cited (H.Res.1209) was introduced to the House of Representatives on 6/28/22 and has not been passed into law, yet is presented as fact without disclaimer

• "...the bill is generally considered transphobic." | Unverified; citation provided for claim does not provide any evidence of "general consideration" of the bill, e.g., a poll showing public opinion, and in fact is completely irrelevant to the phrase it is applied to. The citation for this phrase is an article about a different bill being introduced in the US House of Representatives and no reference is made to SB 180, the subject under review.

• "The current governor of Kansas Laura Kelly has stated she plans to veto the bill." | Unverified; I will actually remove this in the next revision because I have searched and am unable to substantiate this claim. The current citation discusses Gov. Kelly vetoing other bills, but has no reference to SB 180.

• "Despite the fact that the federal government recognizes gender transition..." | Inaccurate/misleading; this statement reuses previously discussed citation of H.Res.1209, which again, has not been passed into law

• "...bill would completely reject transgender people as an identity" | Inaccurate; again, the bill makes no reference to gender

• "The bill restricts agencies, both public and private from assigning any gender..." | Inaccurate; again, the bill makes no reference to gender. further, rather than citing SB 180 itself as proof of what the bill states, a random journal article was used, which also provides no further proof of claim

• "The bill's proponents state that..." | Misleading; This is the most egregious evidence of the bias of the revision you are proposing. Not only did you completely remove a summary of some of the actual proponent's stance, you deleted all reference to it, and then used a critic's article as a source

• "It is largely seen to take away human rights..." | Unverified; this is a massive accusation with no evidence. As stated previously, to prove something is "largely seen" requires Verifiability in the form of e.g., polling data, which was not provided. Language like this should not be used at all in most cases, as it is very difficult to prove and may change over time.

• "...criminalize identifying as transgender." | Unverified; again, the bill makes no reference to gender or transgender. further, the first citation provided makes no reference to criminalization, and the second citation is an article which requires a subscription to read.

Literally every sentence in your proposed revision is problematic. I am attempting in good faith to reach a consensus, but I will not allow the article to contain the factually inaccurate and biased information proposed. If you would like to correct formatting as noted in the edit, please do so. Further undos of my attempts to provide factual and neutral information, without addressing any concerns or expending any effort to rewrite the sections you take issue with, or even express having an issue with the specific points of the revision, are clear Edit warring. Your actions begin to look deliberately malicious, given that the page history shows you've already had revisions edited because they were "biased and poorly written." PhenomenonDawn (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)