Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex parenting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tobit2 (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 16 December 2010 (→‎POV Issue: Odd revert war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This article was listed at the Copyright Problems board for review. It contains subsantial content copied from this affadavit. For one example, the affadavit includes the following at p. 7 and 8:

Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well....Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.

This content is reproduced in its entirety in this article; it is not handled in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline.

Court documents are a matter of public record, but they are not automatically public domain. The "edicts of government" exclusion of U.S. Copyright law specifically says, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."([9]) Affadavits are not judicial opinion or commentary and unless this affadavit was produced by a federal employee in the scope of his employment, the content needs to be removed or revised in accordance with copyright policies.

I am not blanking this article as is standard practice with copyright concerns, but will relist it for another week. At the end of that time, I or another uninvolved administrator experience in copyright will review the listing and return to see what additional action may be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I thought I had caught all of those. There were some other copyvio problems from other sources too in the past. Will have to run through the article with a fine tooth comb, thanks for the heads up Moonriddengirl :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a spectator to this process, am I to understand certain public records are not in the public domain because the federal or state government could theoretically charge a fee for viewing? K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page that explains the situation pretty well, so never mind. K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was quick. :) Sorry I didn't link that in the first place. I agree its counterintuitive, but so the law currently goes. In this case, copyright belongs to the person who spoke the words that were recorded in the Affadavit, although court stenographers have also attempted to assert copyright for transcribing them!([10]) People will find profit whereever they think they can. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community editing restriction of Destinero (talk · contribs)

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map has issues

Firstly there is the issue of why "ambiguous" and "opposed" are lumped into the same color. This seems likely to create an inaccurate impression. Then we have the question of whether the map is showing states where people who participate in gay sexual activity can adopt children or is showing where same-sexed couples can adopt jointly. This needs clarification. Finally and simply, where are the sources? —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this on the Talk:LGBT adoption page, where it seems more relevant. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What A Mess

This article needs to be proofread top to bottom. In addition, it has pervasive POV problems--which it has had for quite some time.184.74.22.161 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it has pervasive POV problems is not enough for a POV tag. We dont put a POV tag to holocaust because few extremists deny it. Phoenix of9 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to fight about whether the article should be tagged, but I am going to explain my reasoning. With the exception of a couple of items in the Controversy section, this article contains only one point of view on the subject at hand--a pro-LGBT parenting point of view. Any mention of a point of view that articulates concern about--let alone opposition to--LGBT parenting has, many times, been deleted from the article. The usual basis is some absurd argument about undue weight. If someone were to demand equal space in the article for perspectives that don't fall within the pro-LGBT POV, I could understand the objection. When pretty much anything that even mentions the existence of such a perspective gets deleted, the undue weight argument does not hold water. Your snarky comment about Holocaust deniers illustrates my concern exactly.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

The statment that some cultures oppose gay parenting has been removed as "nonsense" and a warning sent that such a "bold" and controversial statement must be sourced. Also removed was a previously sourced statement that laws and attitudes vary across the world. Neutral point of view means including all notable sides of a controversy. Even if such opponents are bad people with incorrect or immoral motives, how would a reader determine that there is any controversy or any parties who disagree with the practices? What are ideas about how the article should be balanced to reflect what is a controversial topic outside of the LGBT community? As it currently stands, the lead makes no mention of any nations, cultures, groups, persons, laws, religions, or organizations who consider the topic to be controversial. Redhanker (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Christian mainstream opposition Orthodox, Roman Catholic and conservative Evangelicals within the Anglican and Baptist churches are opposed to people of the same sex having sex together, having committed partnerships, raising children, etc.; they oppose people changing sex as well.

Removed: Historically, many cultures have opposed LGBT practices[citation needed] on moral and religious grounds, including adoption and parenting.[citation needed] Laws and attitudes regarding LGBT parenting vary across the world and cultures.[citation needed] [1]

What is a LGBT practice? Like a gay person going to grocery shopping? A gay doctor's clinic? Your sentences do not even make semantic sense, let alone contain reliable sources. Phoenix of9 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious what practices distinguish LGBT that are of a concern to traditional cultures. How do you propose to incorporate a balanced NPOV that everybody can accept a consensus on? Redhanker (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is a traditional culture? Like the UK retaining its monarchy? You can't put NPOV tags with abstract arguments. Phoenix of9 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being helpful. I hope you recognize the lack of balance and support the principle of NPOV. What would be an acceptable way to balance so that all notable sides of the topic are reflected in the lead, so as to avoid future conflict? Redhanker (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Balance is not talking about all sides, it is talking about notable sides with due weight. Read WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. So, religious arguments do not carry the same weight with scientific evidence when we are talking about child development, because religious arguments are not expert views with respect to child development. So basically you need to find reliable sources without making WP:OR and add them with due weight. Phoenix of9 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix_of9, this page is entitled "LGBT Parenting." If it were entitled "Mainstream Social Science Viewpoints on LGBT Parenting in the United States," you would be correct in your comments about religious arguments and scientific arguments. The problem with your thinking is that the article is not necessarily limited to science or social science perspectives. While I do not necessarily agree with Redhanker's suggested changes to the article, Redhanker does bring up a very important point: Why should "scientific" arguments about LGBT parenting be deemed any more (or less) worthy of inclusion on this page than "religious" ones? Related question: Do you see your own POV here?184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of child development the religious view is irrelevant next to the academic research. No view, based on religious feelings, has any relevancy in defining how having LGBT parents affects children. However, the religious view of such things is reasonable significant so long as we give those views due weight. So, for example, we could discuss, in a short section, religious moral objections. But we can't really, for example, say "priest X claimed that children of LGBT parents would be adversely affected... etc.". --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partially truth. But some religious opinions could be significant enough to be properly mentioned in the article... because if they are not, then it is NPOV.--DeeMusil (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Revert Problems

The following material (which I have since modified slightly) keeps getting reverted from the "Controversy" section for reasons that I, quite frankly, find to be bogus. Thoughts?

NARTH and American College of Pediatricians (a religious conservative organization; not to be confused with American Academy of Pediatrics) argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on parenting by same-sex couples that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science.[2][3][4][5] The American Psychological Association, on the other hand, considers positions of NARTH unscientific,[6] and the Canadian Psychological Association has expressed concern that "some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."[7]

In a 2005 piece entitled "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children," William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, two openly gay scholars who favor same-sex marriage,[8], state that “virtually no empirical evidence on how same-sex parents' marriage might affect their children.”[9]

Some critics of LGBT parenting[10][11][12] cite a research brief published by Child Trends, an organization which describes itself as “the nation’s only independent research and policy center focused exclusively on improving outcomes for children,”[13] for the proposition that an “"extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage…it is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development." [14] Such critics[15][16] also cite a policy brief from the Center for Law and Social Policy, which states, “most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents…"[17] 184.74.22.161 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ {{cite web - |url=http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/2375.htm - |title=Adoption Laws: State by State - |publisher=Human Rights Campaign - |accessdate=2008-07-09}}
  2. ^ The "Trojan Couch": How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science
  3. ^ A Brief History of the American College of Pediatricians
  4. ^ When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions
  5. ^ On the APA Endorsement Of Gay Marriage
  6. ^ Statement of the American Psychological Association
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference cpa2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ [1]
  9. ^ Meezan, William and Jonathan Rauch. Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children. Future of Children, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 97-115 Fall 2005 [ http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=108&sectionid=703]
  10. ^ [2]
  11. ^ [3]
  12. ^ [4]
  13. ^ [5]
  14. ^ Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Susan M. Jekielek, M.A., and Carol Emig, M.P.P., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It? Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002 [6]
  15. ^ [7]
  16. ^ [8]
  17. ^ Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1.[ http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/02/for-or-against-cont/]
You seem to have modified the text just to get it included, without reading the sources. For example even your first source [11] does not say anything about parenting. Phoenix of9 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a problem with one of the four citations, and there were a couple of dead links which I have resuscitated below:
NARTH and American College of Pediatricians (a religious conservative organization; not to be confused with American Academy of Pediatrics) argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on parenting by same-sex couples that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science.[1][2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.22.161 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issue

In the section on child outcomes that refers to mainstream research indicating that parenting by same-sex partners produces outcomes that are equivalent to parenting by a child's married mother and father, the following sentence is present: "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." I proposed the following revision: "Mainstream North American mental health organizations and researchers aver that no credible empirical research suggests otherwise." My change has already gotten reverted once, and if I push the issue it will just turn into an edit war. So I have reverted my own edit and taken it here, even though I, frankly, have little confidence that this will resolve anything.

I am not sure how to argue this point, except to say that the existing sentence is so blatantly POV that I don't see how it could be defensible by anyone, ever. How can I even argue something so obvious? If folks want to keep a sentence like that in this article, I suggest that you visit Liberal-Pedia--"the leftist encyclopedia that anyone can edit"--and put this entire article there. Here is a link: http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Liberal-Pedia_Wiki. The problem is that THIS encyclopedia is supposed to be a real encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. That includes (a) not presenting one's own point of view as if it is a universal truth; and (b) not sanitizing articles of any mention of different perspectives on an issue. I look forward to the dialogue, although I fully expect it to be one-sided.184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the mainstream POV, as it should be. Neutrality does not mean what you think it does. Dylan Flaherty 06:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to ask you to undo your own reversion. There's really not much point trying to talk to you while you edit war. Fix your error, declare a truce, and then come back here. Dylan Flaherty 06:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, you did not bother to identify what you believe to be my "error" and instead opted to revert a set of ten (10) changes I made to the article in their entirety (some of which consist of copyediting) without identifying what you believe that the problem is. I attempted to guess what the "error" might be and brought it here for discussion, but apparently I guessed wrong. (You recently gave some hints on your talk page, but then concluded that "the bad outweighed the good" and that it was best to just zap everything.) You have coupled that with a series of condescending pronouncements on my talk page and yours. It seems to me that you are the one who is being uncooperative. And I'm sure we could all do without the bossy tone of your last sentence above. When you are ready to identify the issues you have, let me know and I will make every effort to resolve them with you so that we can work toward a consensus and a better article. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view
Learn the basic Wikipedia policies first to prevent your obvious and continous inablity to show how this fact is disputed. "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise." Sorry, your inablity to dispute the fact is insufficient reason to attribute the fact and present it as a mere opinion. --Destinero (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anon editor has a point. The original sentence, "No credible empirical research suggests otherwise," uses the word "credible," thus begging the question, "credible to whom?" The anon is just trying to answer that question. Reverting him is not being very constructive. You might want to try a more accurate sentence though, something like, "Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise." That would be a more accurate and complete sentence.Tobit2 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [12]
  2. ^ [13]
  3. ^ [14]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_parenting&oldid=402653530"