Talk:Parent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Parent is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Parent:

Priority 4

Neutrality dispute[edit]

How can we have Mother redirect here but have a separate article for Father? --Usgnus 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Helicoptor's fault. Georgia guy 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Because father was much less stubby than mother, that's why mother is here, but father has it's own article. I redirected mother here, because everything that was there was already duplicated here. Helicoptor 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You are violating WP:NPOV by introducing systemic gender bias. Better to leave the Mother article alone and remove the Mother content from this article. --Usgnus 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Systematic bias and NPOV are different things - lack of content is related to NPOV, but it's not the same. Richard001 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader use?[edit]

The Java (technology?) use of "parent" must not be encyclopedia worthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alien4 (talkcontribs) 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Child abuse[edit]

I originally reverted Ringtail's addition, regarding the encouragement of child abuse in Canada (even though there are laws outlawing this). However, I have brought it back, but with a "fact" tag. Maybe Ringtail can explain more in the child abuse article, without getting personal. -- azumanga 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents abuse children in canada, governments encourage it[edit]

Source: Windsor Star.

Last June, a man who was abused by his parents and taken into the Children's Aid Society of Windsor when he was a child found out that several of the employees there were arrested for having and distributing child pornography at the CAS. He became so enraged that nothing was done to protect these children from supposedly "good" child social workers, that he filled up large propane canisters, placed them in the back of his pickup truck (a red Ford F-150), and drove his truck into the front of the building, destroying the front face of it, killing himself. News stations such as WJBK-TV, WDIV-TV, and WTOL-TV in addition to the Windsor stations reported this. The distraught man's actions resulted in the CAS being indefinitely shut down. The Ontario Provincial Police has refused to comment on this story whenever they are asked (again, windsor star is the source of information).

The Dalton McGuinty Government has also issued no statements on this case, and has repeatedly ignored requests for inquiries into the province's child services and social services ministries, much to the disgust of voting taxpayers. Further reports from the Windsor Star have placed Canada directly behind the United States and England as worst nations for children (USA is the worst, england is second worst, canda is third). This is not surprising, considering Canada's complete lack of regard for child safety, such as in the Myles Neuts case (a child from Chatham, Ontario who was hung up on a bathroom door hook by bullies, ignored by teachers, and found unconscious hours later. He died two weeks later in a hospital), and with the Roman Catholic School Board of Ontario continuing its apartheid-style discrimination against students of colour or those with special needs or Autism (i have been through this myself. I think that counts as a verified source, but if not, i can get a few hundred others to vouch for me).

Though Canada DOES claim to have laws banning child abuse, the laws in reality are either not enforced, countered out by local (town/city) laws, or by corrupt police departments and child welfare agencies that don't care about the constituents they claim to defend and protect. RingtailedFoxTalkStalk 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this provides enough detail. I don't want to go into any further detail, as it disturbs me too much. RingtailedFoxTalkStalk 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not Neutral-POV[edit]

This article does not really give a true description of parents. Many are nice, but many are also terrible ones, like in A Child Called It. I think we shoudl mention parents that abuse/rape/murder their children in the article. RingtailedFoxTalkStalk 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should summarize several articles including child abuse as I've added to the To do list. Lack of content is not NPOV though - NPOV is where there are biased statements in the articles. If you want to expand the article, just add an expansion tag. Richard001 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Parentline COI?[edit]

Parentline (talk · contribs) made this edit, adding three ELs associated with "Parentline Plus" (note the similarity to the username). This suggests a WP:COI issue to me. I'm aware that adding sites to an article is not necessarily a conflict, and might be just fine, depending on the content. I don't want to delete them reflexively, but would like to know the consensus on whether these links are appropriate. TJRC (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Lack of Balance[edit]

There is a subsection, "Father", and no "Mother". Unless objection is spelt out here, I'm going to add the Mother subsection, and edit article text to match. Biggus Dictus (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, by all means. -- Ryk V (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

revert of no optimal gender mix facts[edit]

User Ckatz two times reverted this paragrahph in a lede: The social science literature overwhelmingly rejects the notion that there is an optimal gender mix of parents or that children and adolescents with same-sex parents suffer any developmental disadvantages compared with those with two oppositesex parents.[1][2] The professionals and the major associations now agree there is a well established and accepted consensus in the field that there is no optimal gender combination of parents.[3][4] The family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[2]

Thus I am seeking editorial consensus how to replace rejected fictions currently presented in the article's lede with facts backed up by highly credible sources. Should we use quotations? Any other suggestions? --Destinero (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reject. That material does not belong in the introduction of this article because it is neither a definition nor summary of the topic. It also reads to me like a political point. So, I would move it to a section lower down the page and re-word it to sound less intense. By the way, when referring to a PDF document, you can jump to a specific page by adding "#page=123" to the end of the URL (for page 123 from the start of the document, not necessarily the page with 123 in the corner). I would note that User:Ckatz is an experienced sysop user, and I'd suggest not adding the same text repeatedly until this is resolved. Rixs (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Added into new section, avoided weasel words, pages in PDF were specified. Other comments and suggestion to improvement? --Destinero (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your deleting the short sentence that was in the lead "There is controversy as to whether ...". Then if you have a section on this issue, you can introduce the question and then answer it in a balanced tone. Actually, much of this article could be improved; there are many alternative kinds of parents mentioned in Template:Parenting which should be introduced here. The first lead paragraph is not well written, either. -- Rixs (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I've seen so far, I would suggest that Destinero's text should be reviewed for POV before it goes in. Unfortunately, D. has been adding essentially the same text to multiple articles, both on this aspect and other aspects of the subject. A brief review of the sources D. has used - and the one he removed - suggests that there may be some interpretation of the material that differs from the actual reports. (For example, I'm not seeing the firm "it would appear biological" conclusion that D. has written about, but instead a continued uncertainty. Similarly, I don't know if we can state that The social science literature rejects the notion.) Is there room for improvement? Yes, of course. However, the revisions should be appropriately integrated in a form specific to each individual article's needs, rather than as a clone, and it should be reviewed and adjusted by the regulars to each page. --Ckatzchatspy 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That you are unable to see references doesn't mean that those facts aren't valid:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/rcp.html: "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors (3) and the early uterine environment (4). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." By the way why are you attacking offtopic material to the page which is discussed here? --Destinero (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly an "attack", but instead yet another editor requesting that you get consensus for your edits. As I've outlined on your talk page, the issue lies in seeking consensus first before making significant changes to these articles. --Ckatzchatspy 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe consensus will be found easily since these edits is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and recommendations backed up by highly credible sources. --Destinero (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute, that controversy is there, now is time to lay down some sources for that. Problems is with using words, when paediatrician say there is Father and Mother necessary, homosexuals say, they can be father and mother roles. You have to find something, otherwise you will be completely overwhelmed by copy-paste here on en version of Wikipedia. Your sources will be surely criticized and will be not such "scientific". Destinero is in flamewars on Czech version of Wikipedia (hope on it's shameful end), so he is just spreading his behaviour here with advantage, that he does not need to translate the copy-pasted text. If I would be you, I would check his edits for copyvio. I have no problem with sources Destinero uses, but the text and article composition is usually POV or on POV border. The edit "The social science literature rejects the notion" is somehow... strange. Who is it, this: social science literature? So it is not enough correct and exact for encyclopedia.--DeeMusil (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Social science literature is "rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development". Since you are not able to find relevant highly credible sources stating otherwise, this fact have to stay in the article. My edits are uncontroversial here on en Wiki as can everybody see from longstanding editorial consensus on latest versions of my contributions which is under sight of ten tousand visitors every day. --Destinero (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Understand your position Destinero, but look on reverts in the past. You did delete something instead of searching for source for the text, which someone placed there. Therefore this should be checked, source should be searched, validated and eventually published with deleted text. You know, Parenting is not nuclear physics. At least the court case itself is the proof of some controversy. Document you linked here is just affidavit of Michael Lamb and states: "Michael Lamb, Ph.D., hereby depose and say as follows:" - so it is opinion (well sourced) of Michael Lamb about "The social science literature" and your argument is less than presented. So good is to be exact, because "The social science literature" is nobody. Final changes in article makes this discussion off topic, but you, Destinero, do not say that someone is "not able" to do something, it could be prejudice from your side, as I just showed, that I can find things, you did not realized. Please read Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced. --DeeMusil (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Destinero, I did find your claims, that your "edits are uncontroversial here on en Wiki" as disputable and untrue by observing your edits and talkpages of another article--DeeMusil (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)