Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Contributed material by 72.224.119.207 is not supported by sources

rfctag removed as unnecessary --Ludwigs2 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 72.224.119.207 (talk) in last days repeatedly contributed claims to the article which were not supported by the sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335727536&oldid=335720803 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335714576&oldid=335495734 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=335478512&oldid=334056251). There were several attempts to discuss this prohibited behavior with the user but without any result. —Destinero (via posting script) 09:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the disputed section:

While many child welfare and mental health organizations favor parenting by same-sex couples, there is some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father.[1][2][3][4][5]

If I am mistaken, please correct me.
I am not seeing immediately why this is necessary for this article. All these sources seem to indicate that children need fathers or strong male role models. They Science Daily source does not mention LGBT issues. The Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network does not seem to be a reliable source, but I cannot access it nor the others, but by their titles they seem to reiterate the same points about the importance of fathers. The article does not address parenting without fathers. In fact, potentially, it can address parenting by two fathers. Can the anonymous IP discuss the reason for adding this to the article? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
it seems to me this material can (and should) be removed pending an explanation or better sourcing from the IP. I'll do that now, and we'll see what s/he has to say. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
seems I spoke to late - already done. . I don't think this is an RfC issue, so I'll go ahead and remove the tag. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: this RfC is badly formed - there is no clear statement of the dispute, and the statement that exists seems like an extended argument for one position. I suggest the editor retract this RfC, read through the posting instructions at Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages paying particular attention to point 3, and post a new request with a better statement of the issue. --Ludwigs2 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I originally submitted a request for a third party comment, but that request was removed after another user submitted a request for comment (above). The request for comment was deemed unclear and a request was made that it be resubmitted. Since the other user has not resubmitted, I will submit a request for comment.

The following material, drafted by me, has been reverted by another editor:

While many child welfare and mental health organizations favor parenting by same-sex couples, there is some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father;[6][7] studies have shown that children are affected both by the sex of their parents and the presence of their biological parents, and that children fare best when raised by their two birth parents in intact, married households.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

The other editor believes that there is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. I have attempted to make revisions to address legitimate concerns. The material continues to be reverted. I have attempted to add this material, or material like it, several times over a period of months; it is repeatedly reverted. The other editor has made it impossible to work with him/her or reach a compromise.

Any help would be most appreciated. Thank you.

72.224.119.207 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you address my comments above regarding the material not really being about LGBT parenting and some of the sources not being reliable? --Moni3 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Moni, to the extent that the cited sources discuss the impact of both mothers and fathers and the impact of biological parents, they are directly relevant to LGBT parenting. Which sources did you feel were unreliable?72.224.119.207 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This talk page and the RfCs here are very confusing. I commented in the section above that the five sources do not address parenting by LGBT couples, just that fathers and strong male role models have been recommended. If the statement in question for the article was altered to read that mothers and fathers are recommended by the sources, then that would be accurate to the sources, but that again begs the question of why the statement is in an article about LGBT parenting. While many LGBT families with children have two mothers or two fathers, these families often make a concerted effort to involve opposite-sex friends and family members in their children's lives, and much research has shown that two parents of one sex make for happier children than heterosexual single parents. This does not address families that do not match a 2-parent household, as some LGBT families have 3 parents, stepparents, and such. The passage has five sources, and one of them is a newsletter. That is not a reliable source. I could not retrieve the other three sources. --Moni3 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
to add to Moni's statement. wikipedia editors cannot make these kinds of inferences. If a source says that fathers are a good influence on children, we cannot assume that the source would make further claims about families with same-sex parents. we can only say what the source says, without extending it to other similar situations. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Ludwigs2#RfC: "an RfC is not really needed - the material is un-(or at least badly)-sourced, so it can be removed on those grounds without need for a lot of outside attention. RfC's are usually for more difficult conflicts." --Destinero (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
the references do not support the passage.
  • most references relate to the presence of a father in a child's upbringing, and seem to be aimed a single mother families rather than LGBT families
  • a couple (notably the FOSI article), talk about the importance of marriage in children's upbringing but do not mention LGBT issues except to the extent that they focus on the phrase "biological parents".
now, you could argue that 'biological parents' must be male and female and that excludes LGBTs, however (1) that is synthesis on your part to advance a particular position, and (2) the references to biology are not supported (so far as I can see) in the broader academic literature. do you have any better, more reliable references? --Ludwigs2 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Destinero - I struck your use of a quote by me. what I say to you in talk is not authoritative and should not be brought to article talk space as an argument; I'm just another editor. The argument behind that quote is that unsourced material doesn't belong on wikipedia, and you will do much better to refer to policies directly, rather than referring to them indirectly by quoting me. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I only want let others know reaction of editor who participated somehow (commented) on this issue. No malicious reasons behind it. --Destinero (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to RfC from completely uninvolved editor. Sources 6 and 7 (Citizenlink) do not appear to be reliable. Only peer-reviewed studies by psychologists, sociologists and similar - or better still reviews of the academic literature - should be used for such statements. Any other sourcing questions could go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs section for RfC

  1. ^ Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems
  2. ^ Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.
  3. ^ "The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.
  4. ^ Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.
  5. ^ United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning. June, 2000
  6. ^ http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000000982.cfm
  7. ^ http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000000982.cfm
  8. ^ http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv5n1various.pdf
  9. ^ Insert footnote text here
  10. ^ Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems
  11. ^ Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.
  12. ^ "The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.
  13. ^ Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.
  14. ^ United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning. June, 2000

Stacey and Biblarz, 2010

Sexuality

We should try to come up with a summary for this and others. Phoenix of9 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article does not conform to NPOV standards or Wikipedia policy. There are certain editors who are reverting information time and time again and will not take things to this talk page. Encyclopedia articles are not soapboxes, nor does any one editor "own" any one article. We work on consensus here. As written, almost every single source is taken from either a pro-LGBT parenting organization, a LGBT advocacy group or certain cherry picked studies. When mainstream studies are quoted here, they are quickly removed by one editor who seems to want to retain only information that slants the article to one side. We are supposed to be writting articles that have a NEUTRAL point of view, not a specific point of view that we all might agree with. We can't cut apart studies because they contain pieces that we might not like. The Stacey & Biblarz study that a certain editor keeps removing, is cited to this day by those in the mainstream of the LGBT parenting movement. Contrary to the repeated assertions of a certain users, the Stacey & Biblarz study was not a "single study" but a meta-analysis of all of the available data on same-sex parenting. They found that there are significant differences in regards to the expression of sexuality. This is something that is a fact that we need to document in the article. No one can suggest that Stacey and Biblarz are part of some VRWC. They are both strong LGBT advocates. However, their research is clear that there are some differences that need to be noted. That's just science. Science is not served by hiding certain facts that are discomforting to some. There is an active dispute here as to the POV slant that this article has. Please do not remove the POV template or the work of Stacey and Biblarz until we develop a consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"When mainstream studies are quoted here, they are quickly removed by one editor who seems to want to retain only information that slants the article to one side." These studies are removed in terms of Wikipedia recommendations of relying on secondary sources and not single studies. "Contrary to the repeated assertions of a certain users, the Stacey & Biblarz study was not a "single study" but a meta-analysis of all of the available data on same-sex parenting." You were adding only quotes about one study by Gonsiorek which was included in meta-analysis. This is clearly only one study which need to be replicated. "As written, almost every single source is taken from either a pro-LGBT parenting organization, a LGBT advocacy group or certain cherry picked studies." All mainstream professions which has something to do with children support LGBT parenting because of ample scientific evidence in last 30 years. There is nothing suscpicious about that. Virutally only extreme political groups oppose LGBT parenting. --Destinero (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Stacey and Biblarz work has been cited in every single court case involving disputes over same-sex parenting since it was published. They are both same-sex parenting advocates. You have no right to remove their work in favor of one line from an amicus brief by a LGBT group. Neither of us own this article. We both have a duty to work towards consensus. There IS NOT a consensus here right now, and as such, you do not have a right to remove the POV tag and the work of other editors. I am willing to work with you for a solution, but you are going to have to be willing to work with others as well. Stacey and Biblarz finds are a demonstrable fact. And contrary to your assertions, Stacey and Biblarz's findings of statistically significant differences were not limited to the greater likelihood of same-sex experimentation, they also found that "The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste." You do NOT have a right to remove this information from this article. It is a scientific fact that has been discovered in the course of research by individuals who agree with LGBT parenting. I suggest that you offer some suggestions of your own, and we can try to work out common ground. I'll start with mine, we need to make sure that this article is NPOV and that it includes verified scientific information from the scientific mainstream. We do not cherry pick the data to make the article into a POV for LGBT parenting. We include ALL of the relevant findings, whether we like them or not. Please do not remove my NPOV tag or my edit again. We have no consensus on your changes and the dispute is clearly unresolved.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
1) Amici curiae brief was not made by a LGBT group. 2) The quote from meta-analysis is connected with only one study - Tasker and Golombok 1997. - Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship 3) Stacey's and Biblarz's 2001 meta-analysis conclusion could be presented: "We recognize that political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children with lesbigay parents are themselves apt to angage in homosexual activity. In a homophobic world, anti-gay forces deploy such results to deny parents custody od their own children and to fuel backslash movements opposed to gay rights." 4) Stacey's and Biblarz's 2010 meta-analysis should be included to provide up to date proper context: We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children’s sexual identities or how these intersect with gender. An important longitudinal British study (Tasker & Golombok, 1997) that did not meet criteria for inclusion in Table 1 compared children brought up by lesbian and straight mothers after divorce. On the basis of interviews with the children in young adulthood, the study reported no differences in sexual attractions or identities, but significantly more daughters of lesbians, but not sons, had considered or engaged in homosexuality. The study had a small sample, the confounding effects of divorce, and did not control for number of parents. The newer Dutch study, however, compared a larger sample of preadolescent children raised by planned lesbian and heterosexual couples and reported compatible data (Bos et al., 2006). It found no differences in heterosexual identity scores for sons with two mothers. Daughters of lesbian mothers, however, scored 0.75 SD lower on heterosexual identity than daughters of heterosexual couples. We need comparable data for children reared by single heterosexual mothers or exclusively by men to distinguish the impact of gender from sexual identity here. Did having exclusively female parents or lesbian parents reduce preadolescent daughters’ expectations for future heterosexual relationships? The fact that lesbian parenting did not diminish heterosexual desires in sons supports research finding greater fixity in male and fluidity in female sexual desires over the life course (Butler, 2005; Diamond, 2008). The lower heterosexual identity scores of these girls (but not their brothers) might reflect this gender difference." --Destinero (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense, There are Amici referenced in the article that were submitted by GLADD (an LGBT group) and various other organizations in support of LGBT groups. Amici are inherently POV, and the majority of the assertions in the article are made on the basis of Amici, including several direct quotations from the briefs themselves. This is one of the most serious problems with the article. The assertions from the briefs need to be put in NPOV terms and the references need to be revised to reflect the studies themselves, not what other people claim the studies say. (Which is exactly what an Amicus Brief does.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Amici curiae briefs are perfectly acceptable as Wikipedia references as long as they are created by highly reliable sources such as "the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presenting the brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature". http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf#page=23 "Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx Encyclopedia and Wikipedia have to be based on the facts provided by the most reliable sources available, not to be based on the limited knowledge or unfounded beliefs of its editors only because they want so. And the Wikipedia policies and recommendations are pretty clear here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Respect secondary sources "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." WP:SECONDARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." You should be already familiar with those. If you continue to promote primary sources to the article, administrators will be informed about your improper and destructive behaviour and consequences will be made. --Destinero (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not threaten me again. Amicus briefs are not reliable beyond what a particular organization believes. This was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. They are inherently POV. If you feel that shifting to the studies themselves is a problem, then you should have no problem with finding mainstream secondary sources that are not inherently POV. Amici from GLAAD, Affidavits from partisan witnesses and Amici from policy organizations are not reliable primary or secondary sources. They are designed to get a party (the Court) to believe a specific assertion. You should have no problem finding other secondary sources that are NPOV that put across the same information. Moreover, I just noticed that there are numerous assertions made from the Amici that are verbatim quotes, none of which are placed in quotes. This is plagiarism. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please Ghostmonkey57, do you have link to the source noticeboard according that? If yes, this could solve not only problem here, but the problem of Destineros rampage on Czech Wikipedia as well. Regards--DeeMusil (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Ups, I did help myself, here are the links - one is your talk with Destinero and Phoenix, so have not a significant value in this talk, but in other talks it has. The second link shows similar opinion about briefs as is yours and with completely different people and thema. This shows amicus briefs of all kind as remarkable, but usually with strong POV agenda behind. This could be the cornerstone for Destinero's wild edits.--DeeMusil (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Stacey's new meta review study has been published [1]. It should soon be available at EBSCO. Phoenix of9 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

We really need to trim these massive blocks of quotes from the article. We need to sort the information into small a synopsis that will improve the readability of the page as a whole. The quotations tag has been there since August of 2009. We need to fix this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the contentious situation surrounding this article over the past week, I haven't made any edits while waiting for other editors to chime in. Does anyone have ANY suggestions at all about cleaning this up and making it NPOV and removing the quotes? Right now it reads like an amicus brief from a LGBT organization. We need to morph this into an encyclopedic article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The article isnt long so quotations are fine. Phoenix of9 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
More than one third of the article is made up of quotations. That is far too much for an encyclopedia article. Virtually ever single legal citation on the page comes from an amicus brief of an LGBT organization, (not an unbiased neutral source, or primary authority). There is no effort to conform to article to NPOV. These things need to be fixed. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any wiki rule whichs says there cant be too much quotations? Which LGBT sources? Phoenix of9 17:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes:

"When not to use quotations

When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when: 

   * a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles.
   * the same quote has been used elsewhere in the article. For example, offering a quote under a section titled "Influences" expounding on the influence of someone's religion when it has already been used in the biography section should be avoided. There is no need for duplication.
   * the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject.
   * the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Everything from lambdalegal, the HRC, and the various amicus briefs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Length is not an issue in this article. 2) No repeated quotes. 3) It doesnt look like it. 4) What quote isnt neutral?

And you have to be specific. Give me source numbers. Phoenix of9 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The quotes are far too long and take up too much of the article. As is explicit wikipedia policy, we are supposed to limit quotes and provide NPOV concise summaries. No encyclopedia includes massive amounts of block quotes. 1/3 of this article is made up of block quotes.

2) It doesn't matter if they are repeated or not. They take up 1/3 of the article overall.

3) I disagree, when 1/3 of the article is massive sections of quotes, it is too much.

4) As written, this article is POV toward the LGBT parenting side. I am not suggesting that we re-write it the other way, but only that we make it NPOV. Stacking the article with amicus briefs from LGBT organizations and Lambdalegal links is not NPOV. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The reality is "POV toward the LGBT parenting side", ie: opinions of mainstream scientific organizations (eg: APA, British psych, etc...). As for length, we disagree, the article is already short (may wanna ask a 3rd opinion on that). Finally, I said specific sources, ie: give me source numbers. You are being too vague. Phoenix of9 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Except there are many other mainstream scientific organizations which do not accept the settled nature of the research. There are also many mainstream scientists and researchers that express the same sentiment. The fact that many of these studies have been referenced from amicus briefs is part of the problem. Amicus briefs exist to advance a specific cause. They are inherently biased and assert a specific POV. As for length, filling an article full of quotes to increase its length is not accepted Wiki policy.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What mainstream scientific organizations? What sources, ie: numbers? Be specific, this is not a chat forum. Phoenix of9 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The Texas Psychological Association. As for sources, here are just a few of the problems: Link 8, Amicus Brief. Link 24: LGBT Group HRC. Source 26: Affidavit in support (similar to Amicus Brief) from LGBT Group GLAD. Link 27: Linked to Lambda Legal's servers rather than the official IA Supreme Court website. Link 28: Linked to Lambda Legal's servers rather than the official CA Supreme Court website. Link 29: Another Affidavit from the same individual in Link 26. (This individual is a paid witness for the LGBT organizations. Link 34: Another Amicus Brief. Link 37: HRC (LGBT organzation. Link 44: ACLU (Another advocacy group that pushes a particular POV.) Link 45: LGBT news source (Not mainstream.) Finally, I realize that this is not a chat forum, that is why I am making these points. I ask you to be respectful. Do you feel that it is OK for this article to push a specific POV? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are wasting time. Eg: Link 8 links to a gov website and is the brief from APA. Eg: Link 24 shows adoption laws by state and is the source for "In the U.S., LGBT people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.[24]". Theres nothing wrong with this and it doesnt even make an argument in favor of LGBT parenting. Please do not waste my time with superfluous claims, if you have something solid, get to it.
As for Texas Psychological Association, link for your claims about their views?
And the article is not pushing a specific POV but is about the scientific consensus. You havent given any reliable sources that contradict with it. We dont put POV tags in holocaust article because some neo nazis dispute it. Phoenix of9 20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I provided several examples for you. There is NOT consensus to remove the POV tag. The dispute is not resolved, please do not remove it again. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I take offense at your analogy. Please do not use that type of analogy with me again. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your contention on scientific consensus is at best, facetious, given that any scientific assertions to the contrary have been systematically removed from this article. Beginning with the data from Dr. Nock. I also noted that you have no response for why Amicus Briefs should be included in this article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not make a hyperbolic assertion toward me again claiming that I am "wasting your time." Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Other data that has been stripped from this article, includes finding from some of the very same researchers now quoted in this article, including: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission." J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124–129.
"There are developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior and greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior." Richard Green et al., “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167–184. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I am going to ask you one more time not to remove the POV tag. The dispute is NOT settled. If you remove it again, I will take this up with administrators. I have provided examples, for you, all of which you have ignored. You do not have the right to unilaterally remove the POV tag when there is still a dispute on this topic. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it before your last edit because your claims were superfluous such as your claim about Amicus Briefs. If they are from reliable sources, such as APA, there is no reason not to include them. See: WP:Reliable Sources.

As for your first source, we are talking about parenting here. Since homosexuality is at least partially genetic, biological children of gay men and lesbians may be more likely to be gay and lesbian. Do you have anything that compares children adopted (ie: non biological) by opposite sex couples to children adopted by same sex couples, ie: something that solely compares parenting?

And finally how do those sources contradict the scientific consensus? Phoenix of9 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstract of your 1st source


Again, from your first source:


Yet the very same authors found that "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission." J. M. Bailey et al., “Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124–129. Why should this data be discarded? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Abstract of 2nd source:


"There are developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior and greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior." Richard Green et al., “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167–184. Again, why should this data be discarded? IT comes from the very same author. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, your claims are superfluous. You are citing studies, claiming they contradict the scientific consensus when they actually dont. You are being disruptive. What is your ratinale for the POV tag? Phoenix of9 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am saying that certain parts of the study were unilaterally discarded for some unknown reason, specifically, the data that shows there is a statistically significant increase in the likelihood that a child raised in a same-sex household will either be homosexual or engage in homoerotic relationship. The very authors that you cite said as much. This information should be included in the article. If it is stripped out, then it is cherry picking and POV. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Amicus briefs exist to push a particular POV. That's what they are for. They should not be sourced as links to Encyclopedia articles, because they are inherently biased. We need to cite directly to the studies located in the briefs. Second, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of a genetic cause to homosexuality. Instead, the consensus is that science believes that there are a variety of factors that come into play regarding human sexuality. Third, your reference to the genetic influence is superfluous, because the children could not have come from the genetic union of two homosexuals. It is a physical impossibility. Fourth, you and you alone believe that the POV tag is superfluous. I pointed out that information from some of the very same researchers included in the amicus briefs reveals important details regarding the statistically significant greater likelihood of children who are raised in same-sex household being homosexual or engaging in homoerotic relationships. There was no reason to strip out this data unless there was some cherry picking going on. I propose merely that all of the available data be included. Once there, we remove the POV tag. I am asking you to work with me here, not imply that I am a neo-nazi, accuse me of "wasting your time" and labeling my points as "superfluous" and not worthy of discussion. We are supposed to work towards consensus and assume good faith. Please do so with me. I will do so with you. My thanks. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you unilaterally removed the POV tag again, and continually refuse to work with me, I am taking this to an administrator. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You ask me to work with you but I can not unless you start making sense. Many lesbians and gay men, including some of those in same sex relationships, have biological kids. Just not from their same sex spouses (obviously). Eg: Berkowitz, D & Marsiglio, W (2007). Gay Men: Negotiating Procreative, Father, and Family Identities. Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (May 2007): 366–381
Eg 2: a news article, maybe itd be easier for you [2]
So if you want me to work with you, you will have to stop saying stupid stuff like: "Third, your reference to the genetic influence is superfluous, because the children could not have come from the genetic union of two homosexuals" Phoenix of9 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Two men cannot reproduce. It takes an outside contribution of female DNA. Two women cannot reproduce. It takes an outside contribution of male DNA. That is a fact. No assertion of yours can change that. You have continually insulted me, attacked me, and berated my edits. I don't appreciate it. You have failed to state a reason why any data which suggests an increase in the likelihood of same-sex children to exhibit homoerotic activity has been removed from this article. Two separate peer reviewed studies and a peer reviewed meta analysis have confirmed as much. The only reason that this data would be removed is due to cherry picking. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Two men cannot reproduce. It takes an outside contribution of female DNA. Two women cannot reproduce. It takes an outside contribution of male DNA" I havent made an assertion that suggests otherwise. Can you not read my responses? Phoenix of9 02:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Then we are not in disagreement. You apparently misunderstood my assertion. You still have not explained why the data from the peer reviewed studies that does show a statistically significant increase has been removed from the article. That is part of the reason for the POV Tag. You still have not addressed why we are linking to amicus briefs, when we should be linking directly to the studies involved. You still have not explained why we should have 1/3 of the article consisting of quotes. You merely brushed aside the assertion regarding the quotes. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest you to read this news article? [3] Then you might understand the genetic argument. Phoenix of9 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I did read it. The article does not conflict with my assertions at all. The official APA statement regarding a homosexual gene is this: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..." The reason for the APA statement is that significant doubt has been raised as to the validity of the three major "gay gene studies" that have been conducted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/325979.stm Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is what I propose:
1, directly link to the peer reviewed studies instead of the amicus briefs. Amicus briefs are inherently biased because they exist to advance a particular POV.
2, add in the data from the peer reviewed studies under the sexuality of children. Pair down the quotes to include a synopsis.
3, Synthesize the large blocks of quotes into a concise synopsis of what is represented to make the article more encyclopedic in format. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1) If those Amicus briefs are from experts (American Psychological Association in this case), then they are reliable sources. See: WP:Reliable sources. 2) If the synopsis is NPOV, sure. 3) Ask for 3rd opinion about this: Wikipedia:Third opinion 4) As for now, your POV tag is not justified.

As for APA "...Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...." Nature in that quote refers to biological factors, which includes genetic. Phoenix of9 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are not peer reviewed. They are tailored and cherry picked to push a specific POV. When while files a brief before the court, one is seeking to advance a particular position. That's why they are inherently POV. You should have no problem with directly linking to the peer reviewed scientific research rather than the amicus brief. One is science, one is not. You apparently agree with me on 2. As for the NPOV synopsis, why don't you propose a short sentence that would capture the essence of the following quotes? As for three, Getting a third opinion is fine. As for the APA, you must have missed the many think qualifier. You asserted that a genetic link was settled. This is absolutely not the case. In reality, science does not know on this point. More research is needed. By this is a digression. The peer reviewed studies are already used here, it is POV to exclude findings from those studies that we might not like. Since you agree that two is fine, I would be comfortable in leaving off the POV tag, if we could come to an agreement on 1. Why would you have a problem with linking directly to peer review rather than an amicus brief? That should be a non-controversial suggestion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Amicus briefs are reviewed: "Counsel have assisted the psychologist amici in identifying issues potentially relevant to this case, presenting scientific information herein in a manner that will assist the Court, and preparing the brief for filing with the Court in compliance with applicable rules. In preparing this brief, however, the psychologist amici and their expert members have taken responsibility for reviewing the scientific literature and summarizing the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf#page=3 --Destinero (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Amici are not peer reviewed. They are authored by an attorney who asserts a particular POV before a court. I've authored them myself in the past. They are designed to expose the court to a particular POV. If you want to keep some references to the Amici in the article, I have no problem with that, however, many of the factual assertions in this article are derived from a few briefs, many times lifted verbatim from the briefs without being set off in quotation marks. We need to find official policy statements, mainstream news organizations and other sources that are not inherently tainted with the POV problem that is present in all Amici. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Amicus_Briefs_Reliable_Sources.3F. I have no problem with peer reviewed scientific research and they should be preferable. At the same time, there is no reason to get rid of all sources which point to amicus briefs.
As for sexuality of children, before suggesting a synopsis, I'm gonna wait until Stacey's new meta review study, which has been recently published [4], becomes available at EBSCO so I can read it.
As for APA, almost noone thinks there is no genetic component. Phoenix of9 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The actual research is always preferable to the amicus briefs. I suggest nothing more than reading the brief itself, extracting the sources from the brief, and linking to those rather than the brief. Science > advocacy.
I can understand you taking that position. That being the case, I will put in the two sentences verbatim, without any edits by myself. When the review is complete, we can work together on a synopsis. I will let you make the first suggestions. Does that sound OK?
The genetic component is characterized as weak at best by most of the modern science that I have read. The twins study has been seriously discredited, and the work of LeVay and Hamer has been characterized by some as perhaps fraudulent. It is telling that the X chromosome work that he did could not be replicated and has been discounted by serious scientists. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Their review is complete and has been published [5]. The thing is, my school doesnt have the subscription for the full article online yet. Phoenix of9 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get a hold of it. If so I'll get you the links. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus Briefs

There are numerous assertions made in this article on the basis of several Amicus Briefs that have been filed before various Courts. As I previously mentioned, Amicus Briefs are fine as a source for asserting what a particular group believes on an issue, but they are inherently POV and should not be used as a basis for factual assertions. There are numerous factual assertions in this article that are taken verbatim from various Amici. This is the single biggest problem with this article. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be juxtopositions of various quotes about a subject from sources that are inherently pushing a specific POV on a topic. There are two possible solutions, the first would be to qualify the assertions made as coming from an Amici brief. However, this would require the insertion of a qualifier that would not add to the article's readability. The other would be to replace the amici with references to the actual studies in question, and to form a NPOV synopsis of what each study was representing. I have no problem with including Amici in the article, but I do believe leaving them in is akin to opening Pandora's box just a little. That said, there are ways to leave them in that would comply with NPOV policy. In any case, a factual assertion made on the basis of an amicus brief is not acceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Amici curiae briefs are perfectly acceptable as Wikipedia references as long as they are created by highly reliable sources such as "the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presenting the brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature". http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf#page=23 --Destinero (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, probably, but then do not mix Amici curiae briefs with someone's affidavit (example is the witness of Mr. Lamb), what is just an subject's opinion presented front of the court.--DeeMusil (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Lamb didn't go to the US court from England to please audience with his opinions. He was admitted as eminent expert to provide reliable knowledge and facts from the field. His statements are founded by very ladge body of research referenced there. --Destinero (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't change that it is one affidavit in one court case. If his statements are backed by a "large body of research" then we need to link either to that research, or to a reliable secondary source that summarizes that research. Not an affidavit of someone called to present a particular viewpoint to advance a particular POV. Whether you want to admit it or not, that is exactly what Lamb was called to do. I am going to start replacing the references to the Amici with reliable secondary news sources in Mainstream publications. The verbatim quote mines aren't going to cut it anymore. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
They are acceptable only as an assertion of what a particular organization believes, NOT as assertions of fact. They are briefs, they are designed to push a specific POV. That is why we need to switch to the studies themselves, rather than filling the article with quotes from Amici. Moreover, going through this article, there are numerous verbatim quotes from the Amici that are not placed in quotations marks. That's plagiarism. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I linked here there is another independent opinion on Reliable sources noticeboard, that Amici briefs contain usually a POV of one side and therefore cannot be count as 100% reliable. Affidavits of anyone front of the court have even less relevance. Both are surely NOT peer reviewed. So do not use copy-paste and let's find the reliable secondary sources or use “x says y about z” schema. --DeeMusil (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Material

Has anyone noticed that much of the material from the introduction is repeated verbatim later in the article. This lends itself to very difficult reading. Properly drafted, an introduction is very general, and provides a quick snapshot of what is to come, then the various sections develop the main points in more detail. This article is very lacking on detail. For instance, in the controversy section, there is a mention that there is a controversy, and then that is it. There is no effort made to show what the controversy is, and what the position is of opponents of same-sex parenting. I inserted a piece from a Legal Journal to capture one aspect of the debate. While this has improved the context of the controversy section, we could give other examples of ongoing legal disputes over the topic. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Opponents of same-sex parenting argue that children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father and that the duel gender household provides benefits for children that cannot be replicated in either a single parent or same-sex household." Please quote! I can not see anything like this on the link. --Destinero (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Read the entire journal article. Dr. Byrd makes this assertion numerous times throughout. It is his entire premise. Further, I find it quite telling that you object to this point, when the Amici that you keep insisting on using in the article admit that this is the opposing view. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ways to move Forward

Here are some other things that we need to work on. 1. Expanding the Demographics tabs. We have more data than population estimates. This needs to be expounded upon. 2. There are several bold assertions (drawn verbatim from titles in an amicus brief, that do not have any business being in an encyclopedic article. This section needs to be cleaned up and sourced with reliable secondary sources from mainstream publications. Here is an example: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm. 3. The long block quotes in the sexuality of children section should be eliminated in favor of a NPOV synopsis. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Your link don't include positions of mainstream associations and thus is problematic. We've already have the very good source (amici curiae brief): "As explained in further detail below, amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court." "In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf You cannot promote news article in spite of that. It's silly nonsense. Either you are able to provide evidence that the amici are incopetent and unreliable in describing present state of scientific knowledge or you will stop removing the source. It's so simple! Because you are unable to prove the source unreliable (you obviously think that since you once prepared amicus that every other is unreliable and advancing position and who knows if you ever prepared scientific amicus) the source will stay. --Destinero (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
We will link to the official policy statements. Your repeated assertions that Amici are reliable does not make them so. It is established fact that they are inherently POV. No one disputes this. It is further established that it is impermissible to quote mine from them. The official policy statements of these organizations are preferable to what an attorney wants to push while attempting to persuade a court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Destinore, just say, "according to apa amicus brief or whatever during x trial" before you quote what they say, ie: attribute. Ghostmonkey57, yes, direct links and studies are preferable but dont make up stuff about WP:Reliable Sources. Enough. Phoenix of9 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, you just should read the Reliable sources noticeboard on Amicus Briefs content. Lets find that first two links lead to doubts about reliability, the second clearly and independently states, that Amici briefs are POV of one side of the court case (it is common logic, otherwise they are not asked to write such brief). So, this is evidence you did (not) searched for. Source can probably stay, but text should be rewritten to "x says y about z" schema, what is also Phoenix's recommendation, otherwise can be labeled as POV or deleted. --DeeMusil (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Destinero, can the silence in talk page, while you paralelly do edits in article be understand as you agree?--DeeMusil (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with "x says y about z". And I also agree that we have multiple peer-reviewed journals stating facts and those facts are being added directly to the article prose, since this is better approach for encyclopedia than rely heavily on quotes. --Destinero (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The second "agree" is not about what I did wrote here. You do not need heavy quotes using "x y z" - you can synthetize the text. I know it is harder for you, because then is no copy&paste possible, but it should be done that way, otherwise quality goes down. This is what I always told you on cs Wikipedia. It was always "Amici says, that APA says, that some study states, that ..., and somebody says it is high peer reviewed" - presented as fact(it is opinion), instead to point to the peer review of the study itself - this means big space for manipulative point of view. The first "agree" I'll take for Czech Wikipedia as well. Thanx! --DeeMusil (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is correct, synthesizing the information is what we are supposed to do. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, stop giving dumb advice. You cant synthetize anything. Read wiki policies: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position Phoenix of9 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You stop - at first to use offensive language - at second: stop attacking a straw man. I meant to use synthesis to a citations to summarize what the source is really saying (express the position inside of the source) - IMHO it is basic principle to allow editing in fluent language sentences and not use just a dumb copy-paste. I do not recommended to combine content to state NEW position. And I'm sure Ghostmonkey57 mean the very same thing. Did u understand?--DeeMusil (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct, Wiki policy is specifically against massive blocks of quoted information. We are supposed to synthesize information instead of quoting. This is not the same thing as what Phoenix is referring to. I second the request to not use the offensive characterizations. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Then you are talking about a SUMMARY, not a synthesis. Quotes should be preferable however. Phoenix of9 22:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I now see that few quotes from top peer-reviewed sources is far more effective and better approach here to prevent copyright issues and to preserve all the relevant facts and don't risk losting or shifting meaning by rewrite. Therefore, I support Phoenix position. --Destinero (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. This is an encyclopedia where ideas are summarized, hopefully accurately and neutrally. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Moni3 for reminder. Hope that this time we all heard... means, no more copy paste, Destinero, even if you like it. This is not the way Wikipedia could be written.--DeeMusil (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, ok. That is not a productive comment, however, and not a way to move forward. Take a crack at summarizing the quotes to show some good faith. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to do it, by my english is not perfect (same as Destinero's) as we are both Czech (that's why he does just copypaste). My primary interrest is W cz version, see my user profile. Hope Ghosmonkey will do it.--DeeMusil (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

co-motherhood

co-motherhood has been redirected here as the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-motherhood, however this article does not mention 'co-motherhood'. Discussion also starting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Co-motherhood. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_parenting/Archive_4&oldid=1212334976"