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 24.92.249.215 (talk) at 14:12, 6 August 2015 (→‎Research: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


New Article on Politifact, "Tony Perkins: We 'know' from social science that children do best with a mom and a dad"

It may have links to useful sources (or opinions). [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the author, I think the chances cannot be understated. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Greenberg? What did he do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said "subject", not "author". I'm skeptical about opening the door to coverage of political posturing, even if it's rebutted. The article is science-based, as it should be, and fortunately doesn't suffer from some of the "fair and balanced" nonsense that afflicts many other articles. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia-related outcomes

Jumping off from some of the sources IP and/or his sources were misrepresenting - have we got enough sources to bother including a section in the article on the potential for, documentation of, or speculation on the source of negative outcomes relating to homophobia? We already cite that one Goldberg book, but that's a conclusion of Sarantakos's work too. (Sirota's wasn't about same-sex parenting, though, and she's actually spoken out about its misrepresentation.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?

@Boulevard80: perhaps you could explain why you believe the content you removed to be original research or rely upon unreliable sources. To me, it seems like at least a large part of it is reliably sourced and relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the problem is traced to Rejedef who was banned back in 2012 but continues to evade the block by editing on Poland and LGBT topics, mostly using IPs from England.
You suggest it's England but it seems to me it's Wales. There is something wrong with your claims.--89.192.90.53 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to take responsibility for some of the material Rejedef brought into the article, vetting it for balance, and checking the sources to see whether they were correctly represented, I don't think anybody can find fault with that. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look over it, but it basically looks sound. Are there parts you found issue with? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. the used may have been banned but all the information is sound and valid. It is also very informative and encyclopedic.--89.192.239.64 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not analyze the Rejedef contributions, so I could not have found problems. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if you found no errors in the content why would you delete it? And if you did find some errors why didn't you correct them?--89.192.239.64 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish wiki stuff

@Flyer22: I was also perplexed by the IP's claim that the material was copyrighted, since Wikipedia is under CC license, but the Homopedia source does say it's copyrighted, and at least at first glance, it doesn't seem to be taken from a CC source somewhere else. (Polish Wikipedia doesn't currently contain that info.) Are you aware of the info originating in a place other than Homopedia? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that piece, I see that it was added to Homopedia on November 26, 2014, and added to the English Wikipedia on March 2, 2015. So the English Wikipedia copied them. The reasons that I'd reverted the IP is because I wasn't sure which site had done the copying, I was planning to check later, and because wikis copy each other all the time (for example, via WP:Translation) without anyone pulling the content for a WP:Copyright violation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it seems like we're on the same page? My thought process was the same as yours, I just did the history checking earlier and so didn't revert the IP who removed the content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "same page," you mean "remove the material"? I don't feel strongly about it either way. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, or at least "not revert the IP removing it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adoption

@Deadline2000: I think it might be good to leave a bit more of a summary of the main adoption article here; what's left is very bare. Can you help come up with a summary of the material you removed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research

The article has research references in the third paragraph that I feel should be moved to the Research section below. Also I included in the research section two references. These articles, while criticized and controversial, meet the rigorous definition of empirically validated study, and remain published and uncorrected in the journals where they were published. I also have included a follow up study that revisits one of the studies and will publish contrary findings. The very nature of scholarship, research and academia promote an open-minded and transparent review of information and the readers of the article should be respected to review available information and arrive at reasoned conclusions for themselves. 24.92.249.215 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_parenting&oldid=674842256"