This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.92.249.215(talk) at 00:32, 7 August 2015(Thank you - and two new suggestions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:32, 7 August 2015 by 24.92.249.215(talk)(Thank you - and two new suggestions.)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
I'm about to change the statement "Regnerus has conducted research seeking to determine whether being raised by same-sex parents is more detrimental than being raised by an opposite-sex couple", and wanted to cover the explanation for the change here to discourage automatic reversion. While this is the use that the Regnerus study has been put to politically, it is not what the study was. It separated children who had a parent who the child believes to have at some point during their childhood been involved in a a same-sex relationship.... whether or not that parent was raising the child at the time or, really, any time. Very few of the subjects of the study were raised for any significant amount of time by same-sex couples. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Is Regnerus notable outside the one discredited study? It seems to me that there's a BLP1E argument for refactoring this to an article on the study, but I suppose it's debatable whether that is a single "event". Probably not. *shrug*. --j⚛e deckertalk22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the Marcatornet award from the lede, because after doing a google search for Regnerus "Dignatarian of the year", I got only 37 real results (ignore Google's fake hit count that it starts with), the majority of which were from mercatornet itself. This does not seem to be a key descriptor for him, and does not belong in the lede; were there an Awards section, it might be appropriate there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (though it has already been reverted back in again). I think the other award mentioned in the lead should be moved to an awards section as well. I'm not going to edit again for now; don't like getting close to 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding an awards section. But until that is done the recognition should be left and not repeatedly deleted. Just because the recognition only has 37 results does not mean it is not accurate and worth noting.Camus48 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the Awards down to an Awards section. Having done that, I still see no sign that the MercatorNet material really belongs in the article. It's an obscure award, never before awarded, and not getting significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC) And it appears to be a fairly obscure website, not in the top 100,000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scholastic criticisms
I added a description of the "audit" which was conducted by the publisher of the study and listed a reference. I also added that among the scholarly criticism was also unscholarly criticism of Regnerus himself (same reference from the National Association of Scholars). [1]24.92.249.215 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you added descriptions, but the source, you're using is an opinion piece in a publication that raises strong concerns as a reliable source, as reading through the two discussions I find for it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (this one and this other one). Despite the friendly name of the group that publishes it, to represent someone's opinion in it is being indicative of "scholarly circles" seems misleading. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have done more work and agree that my reference to NAS can't really meet the "reliable source" rigor in this context. Thank you for the challenge and I stand corrected and informed. I would next like to propose some additional editing for the article here that I feel will add more information and neutrality to the views expressed. First I would like to add a reference that I found which supplements the articles' sole reliance on the Chronicle's coverage of the audit. I have found the auditor's own article, and think it would be a good source for readers to have it first hand. It does not have the splashy headlines of the Chronicle's coverage and as such reads more neutrally. read for yourself: [2]. Secondly I would like to propose changing of a word attributed to the sociology Chair's statement which the article refers to as a "disavowal". I don't know why that word was chosen, because the word nor it's common meaning is not used in the Chair's statement. Looking at the definition of this word, it carries somewhat of a negative connotation. It we're after precise and neutral language in this article, I would propose the word "disclaimer" which more accurately describes her statement. Look at this reference for "disclaimer", which more accurately describes the Chair's actual words. [3]. If you agree I would like to change the word "disavowal" to "disclaimer". Would these changes be OK to include in the article? Finally being new to the Wikipedia conventions I don't know how to message you about my proposal so I will leave a note on each of your talk pages. Thank you for your time.24.92.249.215 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
