Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex parenting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Difference between boys and girls

The Allen paper that was recently uploaded is fascinating; I went to the trouble of reading it, as well as the Rosenfeld paper it criticized and the previous Allen paper that was less thorough. I realize there is controversy here, but the paper makes an extraordinary distinction between the daughters and sons of same-sex couples. It doesn't seem as if the rest of the article addresses this. Is there any other literature examining the difference between boys and girls raised by same-sex couples? 136.159.142.129 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't, unless someone proves my knowledge wrong. Allen's survey demonstrates that. We should include the Allen paper on the grounds the IP listed alone. jj (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you change the map to File:LGBT adoption in the world.png, as in our other articles? I recently updated the map here, as it was several years out of date, but it appears that only the other map is being maintained by anyone else. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, since it looks like this article is getting some attention, it would be a good idea for someone else to review the map. I have no idea what I'm doing, but I removed Cambodia and the Philippines because I couldn't verify them. If those were errors, then they sat undetected for years, and there could be more; if they were correct, then our sources are horrible and I probably made other mistakes. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why is there so much faith put in the APA and ASA in order to exclude other points of view? It seems to me that we now have four peer-reviewed papers in the last 18 months that contradict the consensus. It seems like we need to be especially careful to acknowledge that this is part of a larger political debate and, as such, the conclusions either side takes are politically motivated. jj (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand fully that the rules prefer secondary sources. My point is since politics is intermingled, the secondary sources are more likely to ignore sources against their point of view, so we should re-consider how we approach using the APA. jj (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The two Allen studies have looked at more children of same-sex couples than all the other studies combined have. Further, the Regnerus study also provides insight into what (unstable or otherwise) same-sex couples look like, which is very important. jj (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Regnerus study provides nothing. The Regnerus study did not specifically examine children raised by same-sex couples, and provides no support for the conclusions that same-sex parents are inferior parents or that the children of same-sex parents experience worse outcomes. So long as an adult child believed that he or she had had a parent who had a relationship with someone of the same sex, then he or she was counted by Regnerus as having been “raised by” a parent in a same-sex relationship.

Regnerus’s first published analysis of his research data failed to consider whether the children lived with, or were raised by, the parent who was, at some point, apparently involved in “a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” and that same-sex partner.

Regnerus categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care. When the Regnerus study compared the children of parents who at one point had a “same-sex romantic relationship,” most of whom had experienced a family dissolution or single motherhood, to children raised by two biological, married opposite-sex parents, the study stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the opposite-sex group, leaving only stable, married, opposite-sex families as the comparison. (the comparison group consisted of individuals who "lived in intact biological families (with mother and father) from 0 to 18, and parents are still married at present”). Thus, it was hardly surprising that the opposite-sex group had better outcomes given that stability is a key predictor of positive child wellbeing. By so doing, the Regnerus study makes inappropriate apples-to-oranges comparisons. More here: http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf (American Sociological Association) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0376.full.pdf+html (The American Academy of Pediatrics) Anyway, his study shows flaws that even a layperson can spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.186.203 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's a critique that demonstrates exactly what I acknowledged when I said (un-stable or otherwise). It does not answer my huge issue with not including Allen and pretending that the critiques of the majority are "misrepresentations" when Marks and Rosenfeld both are peer-reviewed studies that say such critiques are genuine. jj (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your problem is you dont understand point of this study. Regnerus claims that study is about same-sex COUPLES and PARENTING but he doesnt have information about same-sex couples. His data: Respondents who: Had a parent in a same-sex relationship - "Lesbian" mothers: 175; "Gay" fathers: 73 Lived with parent’s same-sex partner more than 3 years - "Lesbian" mothers: 40; "Gay" fathers: 1 Came from “planned” gay families : "Lesbin" mothers: 30 – 45; "Gay" fathers: less than 1 And he categorized children as raised by a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent and the parent’s same-sex romantic partner (meaning: my divorced bio father had same sex relationship and I lived with my hetero mother and hetero step-father or single hetero mother but I am in group of "gay fathers"! ) But in this study, only 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least four months before the age of 18, and only 23% reported living with their father and his partner for the same length of time. Only 23% of LM children and 2% of GF children reported living with their parents and their parents’ same-sex partners for three years or more! And when looking at the outcomes of those children, we are being led to believe that those outcomes are in some way related to the short amounts of time that those children spent with their gay or lesbian parents while in a same-sex relationship, and not the fifteen-plus years the vast majority of them spent outside of that dynamic. The illogic behind this comparison is mind-boggling. And to "unstable" "same-sex couples": He enlarged his LM and GF groups by lumping together a mishmash of overlapping characteristics into two messy samples(single parent, divorced parents...)The other six categories are relatively homogenous for straight people, but Regnerus’s enlargement of LM and GF groups makes them deliberately heterogeneous. And now having done this, he’s about to compare two deliberately heterogeneous categories (LM and GF) to a deliberately homogeneous category. And Marks, Allen... - Roscelese says: "... as opposed to (from what it appears) literally being paid to draw certain conclusions." Touché! But APA, ASA, AAP are not lobby groups.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.186.203 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You say the ASA is not a lobby group but you also cite a amicus brief by the ASA designed to overturn traditional marriage laws. Exactly my problem. And Allen's studies went through peer review. jj (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Filing an amicus brief doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make an organization a lobby group. In fact, there are lots of organizations that engage in actual lobbying but aren't lobby groups. The APA and ASA are wholly mainstream professional scientific organizations whose published views reflect consensus among scholars in their respective fields. For our purposes, they are top-notch secondary sources. We can debate the merits and flaws of a given study till we're blue in the face, and that gets us nowhere. That's why we prefer secondary sources (such as APA and ASA) which have taken the time and the trouble to sift through the various studies and arrive at conclusions based not on the work of any one researcher or one study but rather on the overall state of research in the field. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As the IP who was edit warring said, that Allen study has perhaps the best data set in the article-- the only one comparable to it is the one by Rosenfeld, which is included. I would think we should either eliminate the school outcome section altogether or include the two allen papers and the two Rosenfeld papers--right not we only have one Rosenfeld.

And when you say to the IP, "push your POV on Conservapedia"-- What are you looking for? There are no secondary sources in the school outcomes section, so we should either gut that section or add Allen. WP:NPOV. jj (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the block in place, we can neither remove primary sources if we're shifting to secondary nor add Allen. I'm not saying the earth is flat, but the reaction to the IP's edits seem to be as if I was. jj (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to be both civil and advocate my position well. jj (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 188 has already explained some of the methodological issues, but I'm also going to respond to one of the other claims in the first comment in the thread: JasonJack, if you don't think the APA and ASA have any more authority on this issue, you need to not be editing medical and social science articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it appears as if IP 188 only criticized the methodology of Regnerus, and not Allen. With Allen IP 188 only referred to the potential conflict of interest. TheArmadillo (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Up-to-date reviews and meta-analyses produced by the largest and most influential medical organizations like the APA are exactly the kinds of sources WP:MEDRS says we should prefer. There are a lot of primary sources that are peer-reviewed and published in journals but yet are still garbage. I'm saying this is true generally, not at all limited to the primary sources here. At some point in recent history there was agreement that we shouldn't be using primary sources in this article at all because we have high-quality authoritative secondary sources. My view is that we should follow through on that and remove all the primary sources. Zad68 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an emerging field of study within sociology. Similar articles often use primary sources where there is a gap in the established secondary literature. With respect to educational outcomes, I think the best policy is to refer to the most prominent primary sources (Rosenfeld, Allen) in the absence of secondary sources. However, I would tentatively support removal of all primary sources for the sake of consistency (which is necessary to keep bias in check), even though it might hurt the article. TheArmadillo (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we focus this on the two vote/discussions above. jj (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

New Study on Education Outcomes

Douglas Allen with Simon Fraser University has released a new study on high school graduation rates by family type. He controls for a large number of variables, including variables which have not been included in previous models, usually because of a lack of data. He uses an enormous Canadian dataset, from the 2006 census. It has the advantage of using self-reported data for same-sex couples, and it is able to distinguish children who are actually the sons and daughters of same-sex couples from children who live in the same household as same-sex couples, which has been a problem with US data. I've read the study, and the methodology is good (they use a logit multiple regression of high school graduation for 17-22 year olds on twenty or so variables). The only notable drawback is one the authors mentioned; the census did not distinguish same-sex married couples and same-sex common-law couples with children, so they weren't able to separate them. However, many of the conclusions do not depend on this distinction. This is the best analysis I have seen of the best dataset.

Someone who hadn't read the study deleted it, but I reverted the deletion; you would think you would have to be quite familiar with a study to either post it or delete it.

Allen, Douglas (December 2013). "High school graduation rates among children of same sex households" (PDF). Review of Economics of the Household. 11 (4). Springer Science and Business Media: 635–658. doi:10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y. Retrieved 26 Oct 2013.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Update: It was deleted again. Let's have this debate, I suppose. 68.144.160.191 (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Update 2: I noticed that the Rosenfeld paper from 2010 has not been removed, even though the author removed sample points from the dataset for the reason that the families had recently moved. He might have just controlled for the variable. Apparently it suited his conclusions better to remove the offending data. I truly hope that bias isn't clouding anyone's judgment here. May we fairly represent the literature without promoting a particular point of view for personal reasons. 68.144.160.191 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Rosenfeld has talked about this in a response, also published in Demography, to another paper of Allen's where some of the same methodological flaws were present. Rosenfeld deliberately controlled for family upheavals as best he could, because if you don't control for that sort of relevant factor, you really aren't testing whether or not the sex of parents affects child outcomes at all. I can quote from the reply if anyone wants, but basically, as we probably all know, same-sex families are more likely to have the children be adopted (incl. later in life) or fostered, and lumping those children in with children who have grown up with the parents since birth or a very young age means that you're attributing to the same-sex parents the factors that led them to end up with the same-sex parents, even if their progress afterwards improved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rosenfeld did not "control" for family upheavals. Controlling in a regression means that you include the variable in the model. Rosenfeld actually removed observations from the dataset. This is not a good practice in linear modeling. Allen controlled for the variable by actually including it. In my opinion, which I won't enforce in this case, this could be a methodological flaw serious enough to justify removing the reference to Rosenfeld's paper.136.159.142.129 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch on the methodology, I'll leave that to others, but I just wanted to comment on the denial here of reliability concerns regarding the source/author. "There are no sources saying that Allen works for NOM..."? Erm...http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/boardMembers.html ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So what if he does? a lot of the other authors are in same-sex relationships (Gartrell, e.g.) jj (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, you are going down a road you don't want to go down by stating that someone's sexual orientation makes them an unreliable source, as opposed to (from what it appears) literally being paid to draw certain conclusions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us judge on the merits, not on who says them. I was not suggesting ones sexual orientation makes her or him an unreliable source. jj (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm the original IP. I dug up my old account so I could post with an identity on here. It looks like no consensus has been reached, but it doesn't seem to be in dispute that the Allen study has the best dataset. I have not seen any particular criticisms of Allen's methodology (other than my own, above). His paper appears to have been peer-reviewed for inclusion in the journal. The points against Allen's paper are that it is not endorsed by the usual secondary sources, and that the author is an associated expert for an organization associated with NOM (I stand corrected on that point; I made a good faith effort to find a source for the claim but didn't find one at first). Are those who oppose my position saying that methodology and data collection are not really relevant, and that we generally only accept studies endorsed by secondary sources? If that's the case, should we review *all* of the papers referred to in this article? I don't have a vested interest in this topic; I endorse the legality of gay marriage and child adoption, but as someone with experience in social science regression methods, I feel compelled to defend a paper whose methodology and data appear superior to other papers in the field. TheArmadillo (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Methodology is very relevant, and that's one of the things the study has been criticized for! If there are other studies in the article that diverge from scientific consensus due to poor methodology, bring it up and we might well see fit to remove those as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you bring up a list of the methodological problems; I haven't seen any cited besides the one I mentioned above. You mentioned sampling but I'm not aware of any sampling problems with Allen's paper. I've already referred to a major problem with the Rosenfeld paper (dropping observations instead of controlling for variables). TheArmadillo (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TheArmadillo, especially since the relevant section on school outcomes has only primary sources, so we should show all of them fairly. jj (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposition: we include both the Rosenfeld paper and the Allen paper in the article, but make the Allen section I wrote briefer to reduce emphasis. We also include the main criticism of each paper: for Rosenfeld, he dropped data instead of controlling for variables; for Allen, the census he used did not distinguish married and common-law same-sex couples. We say that there is little literature on the subject and no clear consensus has yet been reached. I think this is fair, and perhaps even generous to Rosenfeld considering his methodology. To some, it may be generous to Allen based on his affiliation. Overall, I think it is a balanced representation of the current literature. Let's try to reach a consensus by the time the page protection is lifted. TheArmadillo (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support In an area of the article with no secondary sources, this is fair. jj (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose; NPOV does not require "balance". Primary-source studies that contradict scientific consensus due to obviously poor methodology by authors with an obvious financial and political agenda do not belong in our article. If you think you can demonstrate similar problems with Rosenfeld, you might gain consensus to remove it, but Allen should not be added. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Question: Where do you get the "contradict scientific consensus" portion of your rule? There are a lot of papers that are cited here that have "obviously poor methodology by authors with an obvious financial and political agenda," For example:

Gartrell and Bos's 25-year longitudinal study, published 2010, was limited to mothers who sought donor insemination and who may have been more motivated than mothers in other circumstances.[42] Gartrell and Bos note that the study's limitations included utilizing a non-random sample, and the lesbian group and control group were not matched for race or area of residence. The study was supported by grants from the Gill Foundation, the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Horizons Foundation, and the Roy Scrivner Fund of the American Psychological Foundation.[35]

To the methodology issue: you have done nothing to prove Allen's methodology was flawed since The Armadillo's request for a statement on that at 22:58 10/28 UTC (above). Indeed, the "obviously poor methodology" seems solely the lack of being picky enough about which children are included, but that has been disputed by Armadillo by saying that the proper method is to control for variables (as Allen did), not dropping data (as Rosenfeld did). That statement needs a response.jj (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps removing both is an option, but there is no scientific consensus on educational outcomes as far as I am aware. Even if there were a consensus, and the Allen paper contradicted it, you have not given any evidence that it contradicts the prevailing view because of "obviously poor methodology". It isn't obvious; in fact by comparison the Rosenfeld paper it has superior methodology, as I have said already. Perhaps you've just forgotten to mention your methodological issues with the paper. I would be very open to hearing them. TheArmadillo (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Based on what JasonJack said, I must have misunderstood what the concerns with the methodology are. I didn't realize that Roscelese was actually criticizing the fact that Allen controlled for mobility instead of dropping data. I'm very confident, to reiterate my position, that Allen's approach is the correct one. Another approach would be to run two separate regressions on each population of children, but this would introduce new problems. Rosenfeld did not even do this. Controlling for variables is exactly what regression is designed to do. Dropping data biases our estimates and makes standard errors larger, leading to less significant results. This is not a good practice. While I would respect disagreement, I really think this is quite a simple matter; there is no problem with Allen's method in this respect. TheArmadillo (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm no longer entirely sure what you're arguing, but I've already explained, above, one of the problems with Allen's methodology is this: He failed to control for a pretty central concern, that is, family stability, and when you don't account for that - when totally by coincidence you have one group that's made up of more unstable families and one group that's made up of more stable families - you're obviously going to get skewed results because those results are going to be based more on stability than on sexes of parents. Allen claims that this improves his study, but all it means is that he's sampling from groups that are disparate in more ways than the variable he's studying. Quite backwards. As I also stated above, Rosenfeld pointed out these flaws in Demography. One relevant excerpt: "In their revision of my analysis, Allen et al. preferred to analyze the outcomes of all children, regardless of how long they had lived with their current families. Allen et al. therefore attributed to the current family (at the time of the census) child outcomes that may have been produced years before the current family was formed. Allen et al. violated a fundamental rule of causal order, which is that later characteristics ought not be used to predict earlier events." Also, per my mention above of adopted and foster children, "Allen et al. reached the conclusion that children in same-sex-couple families fare worse in school by including all children regardless of how long the child has lived with the family (see their Models 2 and 4) and by including adopted and foster children along with the head of household’s own children (their Models 3 and 4). Allen et al.’s finding of worse school performance by children living with same-sex couples is due to their conflating the initial disadvantage of children who come into same-sex couple families (a disadvantage that appears to be substantial) with the progress children experience during the time when they are actually being raised by same-sex couples (progress that is excellent)." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What you quoted of Rosenfeld from 2012 was in response to an earlier Allen study, not the one in question (2013), so maybe that's where your mistake is. This most recent paper was very recently released, and took those criticisms into account. For one thing, the new Canadian dataset directly links children to parents. For another, Allen explicitly controlled for family stability and marital history. While it is certainly *possible* that there are other omitted variables for which we don't have data (meaning there should be further study in this field), as is often unavoidable in linear models, it is most certainly not justified to discard approximately half the data, as Rosenfeld did. Allen's approach is a very reasonable one given the datasets we have. TheArmadillo (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite; Allen checks whether the child has moved but not whether they moved with the parents. That's part of the family stability thing. (Allen cites his own earlier study in the new one.) I may as well link you a better organized analysis of Allen, since why bother to copy everything here: [1] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but lacking data on whether children moved with their parents is a shortcoming of the data, and not a methodological flaw (I suppose, however, that if he were really good, he would find some inventive way to get around the problem). It still isn't justified to just drop half the relevant data. To be fair, after reading that blog post, Allen's method of determining graduation rates is a bigger methodological problem (I don't remember how Rosenfeld did it), although we don't have a prior reason to think that his method would be biased against either LGBT or non-LGBT families. Overall, the literature on this topic is really inconclusive. Allen brings the best dataset and has the most controls, but we need more data or a creative way of measuring educational attainment to come to anything solid. If we keep the section on school outcomes, I think we have to characterize the question as underdeveloped. TheArmadillo (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, I hope we haven't mischaracterized your methodology concerns. It seems that the issue is excluding certain children entirely or controlling for possible factors (such as stability). It seems like either is plausible. Frankly, when you compare it to the sample size issues in the other papers, this is a much smaller issue (as a small sample size makes it less likely to find statistical significance). jj (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

Proposition in the alternative: to remove all references to Rosenfeld's paper because adding in one but not another primary source on the same topic is unfair.jj (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This would mean excluding three of the only studies that had a random sample (Rosenfeld and both Allen studies), but it is what the rules articulated above would lead. jj (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Conditional Support: I would support this as the next-best option if we cannot come to agreement to include both papers while mentioning their flaws. However, I think this would be a very unfortunate arrangement, and would deprive readers of the opportunity to read the authors' relevant findings. TheArmadillo (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

The debate has stalled, and apparently we haven't got a consensus. Roscelese, please follow up on the points made above a few days ago. If you would rather not take part, let others come to their own consensus and respect that on the article page. TheArmadillo (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And please comment; we don't want to be reverted, but if there aren't dissent there's an illusion of consensus and then we are reverted again. No one objected to removing Rosenfeld and yet it was reverted. jj (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Allen

Why are people including Rosenfeld but not Allen? Both have methodological flaws and the only distinguishing characteristics between them are original research. jj (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No one ever responded to my last edits in the debate above a few days ago. I sort of thought we had settled on either keeping both or removing both. Surprised that certain users are insisting on keeping Rosenfeld and shutting out Allen without justification. Don't we all agree that both have fairly significant flaws, and that we prefer secondary sources in any case? And that we should be consistent with respect to primary sources? TheArmadillo (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the discussion above, you explicitly failed to gain consensus to add Allen. There also doesn't seem to be consensus to remove Rosenfeld at the moment, though that may change with Z's review of the primary sources. Do not edit war, and do not insert inferior content to make a WP:POINT. This is disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't respond for five days; the discussion was left at agreement between me and another user. You can understand why we thought there was some sort of consensus. Nevertheless, sure, let's wait on this review of primary sources. TheArmadillo (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd already stated my position. Did you think that my failure to re-state it meant that I was leaning back from my keyboard in awe at your brilliance, unable to type? No. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Working towards consensus should have meant you participated in the Rosenfeld removal vote, IMHO. jj (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll ignore the snarkiness. Your position did not already take into account everything that was brought up in the discussion. So yes, it seemed as if you were unable to properly respond. You still haven't properly responded. TheArmadillo (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your complaining is not productive. I have made my position clear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Legal Issues section

I think the Legal Issues section had some important linkages to related topics. Its deletion wasn't discussed and may have been accidental. Would anyone object to restoring it?--Trystan (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it might have been a mistake. @TheArmadillo:? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally duplicated a section somehow, and I think when the duplicate was deleted (by someone else) they accidentally took out the Legal Issues section as well. TheArmadillo (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be me. Can an admin fix this due to the ban on edits? My apologies jj (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of research by opponents of LGBT rights

This insistence on fabricating entirely new claims that depart from the sources is really very tiresome. This is not "criticism of research," and it does not come from "critics of research." The ACP, for instance, was specifically founded to oppose LGBT rights. Much of the research being misrepresented has nothing to do with same-sex parenting at all, and actually, if you will read the section (shocker!) you'll see that that's exactly the problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have this section? Could it be merged with the methodology section? It seems like we can keep all the info; it's just the heading that's a concern. And the critique/misrepresentation is a methodology issue. Also, Roscelese, we're awaiting your comment above. jj (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You got my comment above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with removing this section entirely. It reads as arguing a position, rather than plainly describing what reliable secondary sources reviewing the topic have to say, in a non-partisan manner. It also seems like it's giving the viewpoints of organizations like NARTH far too much weight. It certainly should not be a subhead under Children's outcomes. If it were up to me, I'd have a separate new section covering the viewpoint, put the content in this subsection there, but boil it down to about a paragraph as a part of that new section. Zad68 17:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose we move the entire contents to the methodology section and start editing it there. Anyone opposed?jj (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe my vision for this article is just entirely not in sync with everyone else's, but... I more or less oppose because I wouldn't have a Methodology section at all. An encyclopedia article itself shouldn't go over the minutiae of this and that study, so-and-so's methodology and this other researcher's view on that. It should just state the results. If two equally authoritative sources come to conflicting results, it should say "This, or that." If an authoritative source says one thing but a relatively minor researcher says something else, per WP:FRINGE I'm disinclined to even have the article mention the minor researcher. The more I look at it the more I think WP:TNT applies to large sections of this article. If most other editors here like the way the article is developing, great, I'll leave y'all in peace with it, but it's not what I think this article should look like. Zad68 17:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think trimming the misrepresentation section could be a good idea, but various professional observations have observed (= it's not our original or POV observation) that there's misrepresentation going on of studies that don't have to do with same-sex parenting in an attempt to discredit same-sex parenting. We could sum it up in a few sentences to the effect that opponents of LGBT [rights/parenting/marriage/etc.] have taken various studies on parenting and used them to claim that same-sex couples are worse, when in fact, insert sources pointing this out here, the studies did not research same-sex parents at all and must not be used to make those claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68 that the article could use a good nuking and fresh pavement. The problems Roscelese points out in the Misrepresentation section are a prime example of the types of sourcing issues that plague the current version. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which problems I point out? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The general problem of presenting sources that have no bearing on the topic. E.g., the quotes from the Child Trends study in that section have no bearing on LGBT parenting. Nor are they important to the point that the study has been misrepresented. However, I was reading over that section when you first posted and it looks like I transferred some of my thinking to your post. Apologies. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. Do you think we should still retain the material about parenting studies being presented as having to do with same-sex parenting, and just reduce the weight? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but without restating the (i.e., lending credence to) the misrepresentations. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing review - are any primary sources needed?

Off and on for some months now (or for at least the few months I've been involved here...) there's been a lack of consistency in the approach to the use of primary sources for this article. I thought we had agreement to remove the primary sources, but maybe not. I'd like to see if we can develop that consistency now. From my experience in working in other areas, I've come to find the use of most primary sources problematic. Generally primary sources are of widely varying quality, and it is not always easy to tell whether the findings of a primary source are noteworthy or even actually relevant to a particular article topic. Therefore, whenever they are available, secondary sources produced by independent authoritative bodies should be used in preference to and in displacement of any primary sources.

Based on this, I pulled all the sources from the article for review, using my GA tool, which is really designed for WP:MED content. The results are below, and where a source has a PMID, the source type is listed. A number of the sources here have PMIDs but some don't; someone with access to the other sources will need to review them and fill the table in. The goal is to have a review of the sourcing, identify where primary sources are used inappropriately, and update the article to use an authoritative secondary source instead, or otherwise eliminate its use. There was one comment that the studies in this area are too new to depend on secondary sources only, but I don't think that's true... it appears there have been enough published in this area that the use of a primary source should be the unusual exception. Zad68 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If everyone is more or less agreed that we should be selective about primary sources, I'll be supportive. I do have access to most of the sources in the table, so if I have time I'll begin to review them. TheArmadillo (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, a question about formatting ... I've reviewed the first source in the table and found that it meets WP:RS and is used appropriately, but I'm unsure how to reflect that in the table. TheArmadillo (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) @Zad68: TheArmadillo (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back here, TheArmadillo, the formatting is easy. Each table entry has a row definition that looks like this:

| <small><ref name="Berkowitz">Berkowitz, D & Marsiglio, W (2007). Gay Men: Negotiating Procreative, Father, and Family Identities. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'' 69 (May 2007): 366–381</ref></small>
|| {{dunno}}
|| {{dunno}}
||

The first line is the ref, the second line is the comment about "Seems WP:RS?", the third one is "Use OK?", the fourth one is "Notes". Just type your text in to the appropriate line for your entry. Let me know if that doesn't clear it up. Is this table helpful at all in the first place?? Zad68 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought you were looking for either a check mark or an X, or some other special notation. I think the table is helpful, but it doesn't look like anyone else is involved in reviewing the sources. I don't have a lot of time to do it myself. TheArmadillo (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sources table

In this table:

Source lists the source as cited in the article
Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content. ? indicates the source was not spot-checked.
Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them

Inclusion of Diverse Opinions and neutrality

My concern is while much of the article is written in a neutral tone, the content suggests pro LGBT parenting with no second opinion or opposition suggesting otherwise. To add to this concern, the section titled Misrepresentation of research by opponents of LGBT rights is directly dismissing possible opposition or controversy rather than stating it "as is" in a neutral voice. To me this section reads off as more of a political debate than it does a Wikipedia article, and should be either edited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.32.114 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. We had consensus to make this change but then the page got protected, jj (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the edit you made was exactly the opposite of what we discussed should happen, so I've had to revert it. Secondary sources commenting specifically on the misrepresentation are what we need to keep, while over-quotation of the studies being misrepresented is what needs to be trimmed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

An excellent point. jj (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of my edit? I cut a lot of the quotations from Coleman that were just cited to the Coleman study itself, and also the Child Trends stuff because it appeared that we only had the brief and primary sources citing the brief, but no secondary sources commenting on the citing of the brief. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, I think you'll be fine with my new edit. Are you ok combining the Misrepresentation section with the methodolology section? jj (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that's not a good idea at all. Also, would you mind describing the cuts that you made in your recent edit? It's hard to tell from how the diff view shows it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Allen/Rosenfeld.

Why do we include Rosenfeld's study but not Allen's, and how can I get consensus to either include or exclude both? An IP has tried to add Allen, and its hard for me to not edit war sense I know there is no good distinction between the two papers. Yet I'll be reverted if I add Allen and I'll be reverted if I'll remove Rosenfeld. jj (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems more or less like some people use this article for something it is not made for, wikipedia is suposed to give people information. Not the information some people like. It is no dubt that Allens work should be here to, something else would not be very in the spirit of an enciclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olehal09 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look through the most recent archive, I think there has been a fair amount of support for removing all individual studies from the article and focusing on reviews. I think we can come to consensus to remove both.--Trystan (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to represent existing research in proportion to its prominence in secondary and tertiary sources. The outliers may not get a place at the table as WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE would apply. Also, consensus can exist without everyone agreeing. Consensus =/= unanimity. - Mr X 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If we are relying on secondary and tertiary sources, I agree that it may make sense for us to mention the specific studies they canvass. At the moment, the Rosenfeld study is simply cited as a primary source.--Trystan (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very honest to say that the study made made Rosenfeld are more prominent than the reserch made by Allen. It is no dubt that Allen has taken his time and used a good population sample in his study. That much of the reserch quoted in the article haven't and still are beeing left alone. It is extremly unprofessional work you have done here, and something has to be done, it can't be this unbalanced and still be in an encyclipedia. --OleHal09 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. To Mr. X's concern. WP:FRINGE isn't applicable where we have credible studies on both sides. "Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." We thus must not call one side "misrepresentation jj (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Further, the adding of one sentence describing a peer-reviewed and not discredited paper (Allen) while continuing to point out the societies that support the majority of papers does not violate WP:DUE; the key example given is that of a "flat earth"-- which is not supported by any peer-reviewed study, unlike the studies here that should be included As WP:DUE says, "[o]ther minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. " We should add one sentence (or maybe two) about Allen right after Rosenfeld. jj (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What do we think, is Allen's paper a fringe paper? Those who suggested it was haven't responded to JasonJack or OleHal. That seems to be the only remaining justification for keeping Rosenfeld and omitting Allen. Otherwise we'd have a consensus to leave out both papers and focus on secondary sources. I don't think it's fringe, based on the guidelines in WP:FRINGE. Let's settle this and get on to more important things. I realize that some of us are more content to keep the status quo and revert any changes, but let's be fair here. TheArmadillo (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's fringe. I cited the guideline because it helps clarify WP:DUE. I think that both Rosenfeld and Allen should be omitted unless we can find reliable (secondary) sources that cite their papers. - Mr X 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks for your response. The feeling I get is that everyone except Roscelese is comfortable with leaving out both Allen and Rosenfeld for the time being. To me, this is good enough for a consensus. I'm going to remove Rosenfeld. If someone wants to add Rosenfeld, I think they should justify the decision here on the talk page first. TheArmadillo (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever expressed any opposition to removing Rosenfeld, only to your (votre) repeated tendentious attempts to add Allen for the sake of "balance" after clearly failing to gain consensus to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. You never voted on the proposition to remove it, and you later said that we didn't have a consensus, when no one had actually opposed the idea. So I assumed you were the one who didn't support it. 184.151.222.120 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis paper on Australian LGBT parenting

Has this synthesis paper been put into use in the article yet? It's a review of the prior Australian, and some international, studies done on the subject of LGBT parenting. This is the kind of top-level synthesis of other papers article that we look for, right? Silver seren^C 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Children's outcomes sections

The first two paragraphs on children's outcomes in LGBT families is largely a discussion about legal difficulties that trans parents have. Although I understand this is an important component of a discussion of LGBT parenting, I'm confused as to why this is in the introduction to the section on children's outcomes. I thought that "children's outcomes" referred to how children do (how well they develop, their psychological health, etc) when raised by LGBT parents. Is it possible to move the text about legal difficulties of trans parents to the "Legal issues" section? I'm new to this Wikipedia editing business, so my apologies if I misunderstand. Biscotta99 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The stuff on trans parenting was added super recently in a huge edit and it's probably that no one has had the time or the energy to comb through the whole thing yet. Doesn't mean you're wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Rv - Description of Regnerus study

"Discredited" is indeed an appropriate term for a study so generally rejected, including by its author's own institution and the journal which published it. Additionally, the study does purport to show the effects of same-sex parenting ("young adults raised by same-sex parents", from the study web site). A large part of the problem is that it makes these claims without the data to support it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article being linked to? The text supports "widely criticized" by citing a number of criticisms, but it does not directly support "discredited". I don't see how this is even arguable. Furthermore, did you read the Regnerus paper? It doesn't claim to say something about "same-sex households", it makes a claim about kids whose parents had had a same-sex relationship. The sentence as you left it is incorrect as an interpretation of the paper. As to your other edits, did you read what was being cited from the Allen paper? It's not the findings about graduation rates as before, it's a completely unrelated and entirely unobjectionable summary of all the studies. Also, did you read the paragraph I deleted? It has nothing to do with methodology, so it's inappropriate to include it in the section called "Methodology". Maybe there's somewhere else it would fit in the article, but that's not immediately apparent. I feel compelled to undo your revert, because all of your criticisms seem to be based on an incomplete review of the material.TheArmadillo (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Edit: As far as the Regnerus, the UT website does say "same-sex parenting" but the study itself is very clear, in both the title and the abstract. I'm just trying to go directly from the sources and not tell a narrative. TheArmadillo (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake re: the different Allen paper; I'll have to look at the newly added one separately. As for Regnerus - as I pointed out above, his data concerned parents who had had a same-sex relationship at any point (versus opposite-sex parents married throughout the whole childhood), but he refers constantly in the paper to "GLB families" etc. I think it's fair that you're saying the UT website description isn't technically part of the study, but I don't think it's fair to say that Regnerus himself didn't try to draw conclusions that were broader than his extremely poor dataset merited. That's actually one of the main reasons his study was discredited - UT's sociology department, ie. Regnerus's own department, called it fundamentally flawed and the Social Science Research audit, ie. from the journal in which it was published, found that it never should have made it through. And re: the Hicks paragraph - how about if we move it under "Sexual orientation and gender role adherence of children," which is the studies that it's about? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Allen summary of the literature is in the same paper, but it's unconnected to his analysis of graduation rates. It just happens to be the most recent survey of LGBT parenting literature. I think it's uncontroversial, and very topical in the methodology section. As far as Regnerus, his claims were very clear for anyone who read the whole paper. He did not hide the fact that his data concerned kids whose parents had been in same-sex relationships, not just kids whose parents were gay. Out of thousands of families across the dataset, there were only two families where two gay parents stayed with a child for the eighteen years of their childhood. I don't know if it's fair for our only reference to his paper to refer to a characterization that was made more by his opponents than by him. Also, "purported" just feels a little loaded. It might be worth adding an extra sentence just to give clarity and in order both not to mischaracterize the paper and to explain the flaws. I still don't think we have any sources that support "discredited", at least in light of a number of researchers who said his methods were no worse than standard social science research. "Refuted by most researchers" would be accurate, I think. I'm fine if the Hicks paragraph is moved to the other section. TheArmadillo (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Should polyamorous parenting be mentioned?

Polyamory has been in the news with more frequency lately. The famous 'married' lesbian throuple from Massachusetts is expecting a child, from what I understand. There are at least 500,000 poly families in the US, according to certain surveys, many of whom have kids. There's no article on polyamorous parenting yet, so should we mention it briefly here? Especially since around a third of poly people identify as LGBT as well. TheArmadillo (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Polyamory and the topic of this article are not related. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that groups like the lesbian throuple I mentioned *are* LGBT, as well as polyamorous. There's quite a bit of overlap. Not to mention the fact that LGBT is more and more being seen as an outdated term, because of the many sexual minorities that aren't included. If poly parenting definitely does fall out of the scope of this article, is there an article where it would fit? TheArmadillo (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

TheArmadillo did you see Polyamory#Parenting? Zad68 04:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I missed that! Thanks. TheArmadillo (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Zad68 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A quotation for the section methodology

«Lack of representative samples is the most fundamental problem in quantitative studies on gays and lesbians. Self-recruited samples from an unknown population have been and still are very common in studies of homosexuals» Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). P.80

Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43(1), 79–98. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Bleuler (talk • contribs) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seven famous

7 famous publications concerning 4 probability samples:

Allen D.W.(2013) High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households.Rev Econ Household DOI 10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y [1] [2] (Sub-sample of the Canadian recencement 2006)

Golombok S., Perry B., Burston A., Murray C., Mooney-Somers J., Stevens M. (2003), Children With Lesbian Parents: A Community Study. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp 20–33. (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children)

Regnerus M. (2012), How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research, vol. 41, no 4,‎ pp. 752–770 (The New Family Structures Study)

Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. Demography, 47(3), 755–775. (Sub-sample of the US recencement 2000)

Wainright JL, Russell ST, Patterson CJ. (2004) Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development. 75(6):1886-1898. (the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

Wainright, J., & Patterson, C. (2006). Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same sex parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 526–530. (the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

Wainright, J., & Patterson, C. (2008). Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 117–126. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Bleuler (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC) (the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)

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). [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the author, I think the chances cannot be understated. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jon Greenberg? What did he do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

?

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, I did not analyze the Rejedef contributions, so I could not have found problems. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, or at least "not revert the IP removing it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

The lead should summarize the body of the article. This article has an extensive section on research, and there needs to be a summary of that in the lead. While references generally aren't required for the lead, they may be added if the material is likely to be challenged (see WP:CITELEAD).--Trystan (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trystan: I see, you've moved the paragraph back into the lead. I want to talk about editing this paragraph, since there are well documented and very well known challenges to the research listed in the third paragraph which are an important part of the topic. As you say, any competent summary of the research should include that controversy exists, and the way it's written the reader could falsely infer that there isn't controversy when in fact there is. So I will edit the first paragraph and invite your comments. I'm new to Wiki editing so I don't know why the other research I provided has been deleted, unless it's because you hit the "undo" button and all my changes were reverted? Or do you simply not agree with listing research which opposes that in the first paragraph? In any case I would like to add back in my paragraphs in the research section because they are validly presented and scientifically appropriate. If I do this will you just delete them again? 24.92.249.215 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@roscelese: In addition after I edited the first paragraph as I mention above, and saved the work, I see that another user Roscelese deleted the research references under the statement "promotion of known bad studies". The scientific community has well-documented divisions on your opinion whether the research listed is a "bad study". The user promulgates their opinion "bad study" and deletes the citations. I will seek to have this research included in this article since it is known to be empirically validated and remains legitimate today. An opposing view does not make it a bad study, since the study in question still is held in high regard with many scientific experts who stand by the work which still is in print in it's original form. Until a time that the study is officially declared "bad", then the study citation and references should remain as part of an open-source dialog. 24.92.249.215 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dawn Bard: And now I see that another user Dawn Bard labels my inclusion of opposing scientific research as "POV Pushing" and that my citations are not supported by the citations given. First of all, of course the citations already listed do not support opposing views, that's why they are opposing views. And this is why including the references to alternate views is very important, because it is well known in the scientific community that known that some controversy does, in fact surrounds this topic. Deleting references to opposing views (those views that are scientifically validated) is trying to marginalize a vital aspect of knowledge, which is to permit (and even encourage) a dialog between viewpoints. I will propose to include the previously deleted information in the lead and object to having opposing views labelled as POV pushing. 24.92.249.215 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There are "well known challenges" which have been soundly refuted as the product of fourth-grade methodology. If we had a separate article on research into LGBT parenting, we might consider adding a sentence to the effect of "there are some shoddy studies which disagree with consensus but get cited a lot by right-wing organizations", but this is just an article on LGBT parenting and it's not necessary to highlight stuff we know is unscientific. There is no need to "teach the controversy" by artificially giving credence to bad science. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope I am following proper protocol for indentation ( I am new to the editing procedures). I value the dialog with you. I would agree that some discussion in a separate article may be warranted, but this article, the one in question, brings forth research in the Lead, and therefore some research discussions belong exactly within this article. The research I cite is validated by the rigors of the scientific process, meets with the Wikipedia standard and cannot appropriately be marginalized just because some user (or users) has an unfavorable opinion of the study, it's methods, or it's outcomes. It's clear that the study has not been refuted, and remains viable. But, as I said earlier, I will be the first person to delete the reference if the study is officially sanctioned, but it never has been, and still is not today. True, some people don't like it and are vocal about it's criticisms, but this has not invalidated the findings. I did originally include appropriate mention of the study's criticisms and that there were other researchers who even found alternative conclusions based on the same data. I think we all want the same thing, for the LGBT parenting article to be informative, useful, and accurate. If including opposing research findings within this article are objectionable, then we should take out the third paragraph entirely and start a new article on research of LGBT parenting. But I'd rather just edit the article and not have my neutral views labelled as inappropriate just because they are opposing views. I hope we can work this out in the interests of the open-minded, nonjudgmental information sharing that makes Wikipedia such a great place. If I edit the paragraph again do you plan to delete my work again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.249.215 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 24.92.249.215 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No one's omitting it because they "don't like it." The journal that ran it did an audit and found that it shouldn't have been published because it was substandard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Much negative press has been published on this 2012 research article, which is very easy to find. But I also wanted to include less-criticized 2013 article out of Canada that was deleted unceremoniously also. ^[1] While the audit you reference was critical of the 2012 study for sure, the latest facts you suggest are not entirely the truth. Yes there was an audit, and what is less known is that the auditor himself states "My review of the editorial processing of the Regnerus and [another's] papers revealed that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures—the papers were peer reviewed, and the ‘‘peers’’ for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research." ^[2]. In addition there is some compelling follow up work by 27 social scientists who interpret criticism of the article beyond just "academic" concerns,^[3] thus suggesting your own colorful interpretation of the work (i.e, "fourth grade", "shoddy", "bad", "unscientific") is not the most complete nor the most accurate interpretation available, and clearly is not neutral as required. I think I have provided enough background to properly claim that the 2012 article still today has criticisms, but also has redeeming qualities, and that opinions such as you seemed to have formed do not and cannot undue all of the redeeming qualities of this relevant research. It belongs in the research section of this article so that readers can have the information and can, in turn, form their own opinions. Nothing is to be gained by silencing opposing views except more controversy. And if there's one thing LGBT parents do not need is even more controversy than already exists. I sense that we will not agree, so I would like to propose further dispute resolution as offered by the Wiki founders. In the end I should not have censorship rights to silence your views, and you should not have censorship rights to silence mine. If you can't see resolution to this matter, I would like to take this to the next level. All I'm asking for is important pieces of information to be included within an Wiki article that is relevant to that article, and even while the information has been criticized, it still possesses integrity and deserves dignity and respect24.92.249.215 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC). The WP:CITELEAD standards dictate that important controversies should be included in the lede, and the 2012 study (nor more recent works) can appropriately be considered minor controversy. Other views affirm the same controversy - such as 4/29/15 article from the daughter of a LGBT parent who writes in critically about LGBT parenting ^[4], and a large study (again, empirically validated and meeting the standards of Wikipedia) published in January, 2015 that used sample of 207,007 children, including 512 with same-sex parents ^[5]. Finally I would thank the moderators of this article to permit my editing to stand, which I will of course include with respect and care for this sensitive (and controversial) subject. 24.92.249.215 (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you keep invoking things like "censorship" and "silencing opposing views" and repeatedly saying that readers need to hear all "sides" shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what kind of content Wikipedia is meant to include. Wikipedia contains content proportioned in regard to its representation in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

two things. First, Roscelese, I keep answering your comments and you keep bringing up new topics. Can we stay on one topic at a time? I've raised bunch of issues and you take one element and tangent it off to the side.

Second, a new proposal: I would like to edit the lead section that says "Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise." We don't have to wait for these associations to identify a reliable source for wikipedia. We just have to meet Wikipedia's rules (i.e, that the study has been peer reviewed and meets the other criteria for inclusion in an article). The Major mental health associations' opinions do not carry the weight of empirical research. In addition it's a logical fallacy that because these organizations haven't identified it, that there is none see (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absence_of_evidence_is_not_evidence_of_absence&redirect=no. let's talk about it here. There are always other means to dispute resolution but I'd like to work it out here in the spirit of consensus. If that fails we can always get other help down the line.Cityside189 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't give equal weight to poor, fringe, or flawed research. All of the suggestions so far fall into one of those categories. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"That's just, like, your opinion, man" should not ever come up as a plausible paraphrase of something a Wikipedia editor is saying about the views of a major medical association. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120926173852/http://www.aamft.org:80/iMIS15/AAMFT/MFT_Resources/MFT_Resources/Content/Resources/Position_On_Couples.aspx to http://www.aamft.org/iMIS15/AAMFT/MFT_Resources/MFT_Resources/Content/Resources/Position_On_Couples.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217103123/http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=466057&lng=3 to http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=466057&lng=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091015163119/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=43546/02&sessionid=4859311&skin=hudoc-en to http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=43546/02&sessionid=4859311&skin=hudoc-en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Improve the article? This wiki project is for everyone, do not delete again please as you show your true hateful colours by doing so

One assumes that you are in favour of diversity, if so you need to have real diversity of opinions too, without hateful finger pointing (invasion of the body snatchers style now favoured by the extremists). Such as to discuss and investigate the many studies that asked the children involved if they would prefer a Mum/Mom AND a Dad or would they prefer two dads/two Moms or whatever will come in the next round of equality cravings. Maybe just ask some children yourself as many already have and maybe, just maybe the feelings, rights and futures of the children that deserve both their biological Mum/Mom and Dad in their lives will be put first, rather than the often (not always) selfish personal desires of the adults who dictate the child's lifestyle and hide behind idealogical, so called studies. Let us see just how inclusive, tolerant and diverse the article becomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.142.202 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it would be polite to sign your contributions, as requested, instead of waiting for a bot to do that. Just click on the four tildes below to insert your signature; it's as simple as that. And then it would have been a good idea to follow the link Rivertorch's Evil Twin gave you (WP FORUM); it would have explained why your contribution was removed, namely for objective Wikipedia policy reasons, not because of any bias. The talk page is not for your (or anyone's) personal opinion on the matter. Finally, the suggestion you make ("ask some children yourself"), comes down to "original research" which is excluded on Wikipedia. If you think that you can add useful aspects to the article, please find a reliable source (like a published study) you can link to.

And yes, I'm perfectly fine with this being deleted together with your contribution after you had some time to read it. In principle, I should have posted it on your user talk page, but I fear you might not find it there. Please feel free to react on mine; we should not take this any further here. Sigur (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sigur for your eloquent reply. Fair enough, your points are reasonable and I should have taken more notice of the rules. I am new to all this and so am not so techy wiki savvy, even this time as the ip address changes every few hours. The subject is powerful, provocative and for many, very personal and to have the comment (which was intended to help improve the article as the talk page description asks) deleted off without (it appeared) any reason, one concluded the worst, which now appears wrong. Please forgive this novice and as there are more important things to worry about, let us perhaps move forward as friends, rather than enemies. We might even leave this conversation on here to show that we can and should (all) be free to disagree without being disagreeable. Kindest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.146.167 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT parenting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Discredited research being added again

@TattonWest: you should know better than this. The "research" is "mentioned" exactly where it should be - a side note that points out that no one reputable considers it valid. Wikipedia does not require false balance between mainstream views and fringe views; rather, we go with what mainstream scientific research and scientific bodies say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The research was not entirely discredited. The journal did not retract it. There are reputable scientists supporting the research. And there are several other studies that conjoin. I find it a violation of NPOV to not mention this in the main body of article. Also, the fact that some view is mainstream (who defines mainstream anyways? what about global context?) does not mean that it is correct, and that other views should not be mentioned. I am certain that in context of Wikipedia articles any professor of a recognized university publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is a credible source for including material on a Wikipedia article's page. Aside from this, American College of Pediatricians amici curiae recognized such studies. They have been published in various established medical, sociological and family studies journals. Link to the amici --202.166.79.224 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I would note that the ACP is a splinter group of roughly 60 to 200 pediatricians (in contrast to the AAP's 60,000), whose mission statement is explicitly grounded in faith. Including their opinion would violate one stipulation of NPOV: Equal validity can create a false balance.PotvinSux (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important that we maintain a clear and reasonable (logically sound) approach when discussing research. An organization's mission statement, political leaning, or even bias is irrelevant when considering the value of the research. If the research was conducted with the enough due diligence, then it is valid. Otherwise we run into the quagmire where any association or research body can be reasonably construed as biased (you dont have to be biased towards faith, you can be biased against faith-based morals or ethics); this results in a scenario where all research would be equally invalid.

Therefore it is important to include all research on this topic so that we can honestly discuss the data, rather than biases. Bias, in an of itself, does not directly change data.

Nerhesi (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The effect of bias on the validity of studies is well documented. Shoddy researchers tend to get the results that reinforce their preconceived notions; it's called confirmation bias, and it's not uncommon. When a study's authors want their biases reinforced, they most certainly do find ways to skew the results. Whether it's faulty methodology or misinterpretation of data, it happens. Sometimes it's inadvertent, sometimes it isn't. If it isn't, then it really goes beyond a question of bias and into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. There's no way that we're going to legitimize bogus studies or junk science by giving it equal billing in an article. For the most part, we use reliable secondary sources, which are generally pretty good at differentiating bullshit from legitimate findings. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean biases like sampling same-sex parents from high socio-economic status backgrounds, to make a claim for same-sex parenting as a whole? If we are including the flawed studies in favour of same-sex marriage, so too must we include those against it.106.68.89.48 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, all the content on this page saying that children raised by same-sex parents have no differences with children raised by different-sex parents is fake, bacause it has been discovered recently^{[citation needed]} that all those studies supporting that were manipulated and cheated by including a lot of heterosexual parents as homosexual parents, in a shameful move that one user above describes as "confirmation bias". On the other hand, the only two studies that weren't manipulated are the ones which discovered that children raised by homosexual parents have some problems the rest of the children don't have. The problem is that as most "studies" validate a wrong result, and they come from mainstream institutions, the wikipedia accepts that point. But why would a scientific study be manipulated to conclude that same-sex couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples? Because scientific institutions depend on politicians, and most politicians are sold out to the LGBT lobbies. So all studies from those institutions will have confirmation bias or intellectual dishonesty and thus they should never be trusted. But I can sadly see that the wikipedia is also sold out to the LGBT lobby. 37.133.219.81 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Children aren't "grown" by parents; they're raised. Perhaps you are confusing children with plants. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see that our anonymous friend has now corrected this linguistic inaccuracy. That gives me hope that they will one day also add the needed citation. Sigur (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Biological and adopted numbers

Not sure where to put this. I noted the claim here that 80% are biological children. I following the link. It doesn't say that. It says 80% are not adopted, and most of them are biological children. But most isn't all, so the number is less than 80%. I was unable to follow the links far enough to get an actual number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.68.183 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. Is there a third category besides biological and adopted? (I moved your comment to a new section at the bottom of the page and gave it a relevant title.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about the link in footnote 58? The source says that 19% of gay couples adopt and that more than 80% of children raised by same-sex parents aren't adopted. Unless there is a a big difference in the number of children per couple between those who raise biological children and those who raise adopted ones, that's a logical correlation. Perhaps it would be safer to write "about 80%", but basically the numbers add up. Sigur (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Bias towards LGBT parenting

The article seems to be skewed in such a way that criticisms of LGBT parenting and its effect on children isn't given enough weighting. In one subheading such analysis of LGBT parenting is labelled as "misrepresentation". It would be in the best interests of this article and Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:GFCA policies to include criticisms of the alleged effects that being raised by LGBT couples has on children. A good source to look at here is this article from The Conversation which identifies and contextualises evidence from major studies which support both sides. This op-ed from Quadrant which suggests being raised by gay couples adversely effects a child's welfare may also be worth checking out. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no. Quadrant is a conservative political magazine, and whatever nonsense their opinion pieces may spew is irrelevant for our purposes. You have presented no credible evidence of systemic bias; therefore, I object to the template you placed on the article and have removed it. I would suggest either seeking consensus here on the talk page that the article is indeed affected by systemic bias or simply adding content backed by credible, scientifically rigorous studies, preferably meta analyses, to support your contention. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with River. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that there is one legitimate criticism against many mainstream studies (also mentioned by The Conversation), and that is convenience sampling. At the end of the day, this is pretty well - and fairly - covered under "Methodology", but you really need to read the whole article carefully to understand it. I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be worth to change the title of that section to something more specific, like "Methodological limitations (in particular convenience sampling)". This way, it would also show in the table of contents that legitimate criticism is indeed taken into account. I'm not saying the article is actually biased, but I can understand that at first sight it might look like that. Sigur (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be a very long section title. If a reader skips a section and gets the wrong impression...well, I'm not sure the incidence of that would be decreased by changing the section title. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There is more research supporting the claim raised by trainsandtech. Two more examples: see article in Psychological Reports showing that citation rates and research on lesbian parenting can be much higher when supporting it than when negating it. This article in International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family presents significant research errors which support the bias claim. Faceman1 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting Evaluation

Article Evaluation: LGBT Parenting

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

A minor things were not mentioned that I have encountered into my intro to LGBTQ studies. The language being used within the article was quite a distraction because a lot of new language has been created.

Is any information out of date?

The title of the article should not be LGBT, instead it should include all forms of the community; LGTBQIA2S+

I would like to incorporate edits to LGBT acronym to be more inclusive and change the acronym to LGBTQ+, or as suggested above LGBTQIA2+ RadRemi (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

What else could be improved?

The homophobia and Transphobia does not mention what that refers too nor does it relate on how it affects the families.

I would like to add references or organizations within schools and resources for LGBTQIA2+ students, and the children of LGBTQIA2+ parents in order to address how homophobia and transphobia manifest, affects, and supports for folks within these social locations. RadRemi (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

As I evaluated this article, it was a bit underrepresented because of the language, not many sources of evidence of the facts, and how non traditional families are important in today's society.

.How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Lesbian and queer cultures is a significant reason why people should educated themselves within society. The things that are mentioned in the article and what we discuss about in class differ because we call people in for the use of language that individuals are accustomed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lptoled2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Hi @Snooganssnoogans:, sorry I had to revert your edit because you inserted a recent study. You have undone my removal of it. I am going to point you to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which states Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. Since it sounds like a fine line, I am going to see if Flyer22 Frozen and Crossroads might like to comment. I could be totally wrong, but I think you need to wait for this research to show up in a book or academic review in which an expert interprets the findings in a wider context. While these researchers seem well qualified, and this journal has a good impact factor; if you allow people to cite primary studies (even peer reviewed ones), other editors can just as easily cite studies which show poor outcomes (which are largely an artefact of sampling and ignoring genetic effects). By this standard, anti-lgbt editors could just go and cite Walter Schumm or Regnerus, since their research is in journals and would also meet the standards you set here. I recommend you read pages 84-86 in this Bailey (2016) review which covers why this area of research is a bit tricky, but also why other evidence from twin and adoption studies show that LGBT parents are more than likely just as good. Sxologist (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) WP:SCHOLARSHIP is not a justification for removing any and all peer-reviewed research. It's an expression of a preference for reviews. Just as the WP:RS guideline's preference for peer-reviewed research doesn't mean that you can't cite the NY Times. (2) If you personally want to add the discredited research by the LGBT opponents that you mentioned, then it would need to come with rebuttals of said discredited research or else fail WP:NPOV. (3) If other scholars go on to rebut the study I added, published in the top sociology journal, then that can be added at a later point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that wanted to include anti-gay research? No way. I politely stated that we should rely on secondary sources because the topic at hand is quite sensitive. The study you cited will likely be included in an academic review in the not too distant future and then it can be used. Your comment that If other scholars go on to rebut the study I added, published in the top sociology journal, then that can be added at a later point underscores the problem with citing primary research. It can be wrong, misleading or have statistical errors. It needs to be interpreted by other academics first. For a comparable example, there is a study by Andrea Roberts of Harvard University which claims that abuse causes homosexuality, which is covered in this section of this article, and has been criticised for flaws and rejected by experts. The section I linked makes zero reference to the original study, but instead cites three secondary sources: a book by Simon LeVay, a critique by J. Michael Bailey, and an academic review, all experts who interpreted/critiqued it in the light of other research and state that the finding is a false positive. If people put blind trust in Roberts because she works at Harvard and her paper was peer reviewed, one can come away with the wrong impression. For that exact reason, there is no rush to cite the most recent research as soon as it comes out. I am 100% with you – most likely it's a perfectly good study – but it's probably best to wait for it to show up in an academic review. There may be other editors who think it's okay to include it (and I might be wrong) so I'd appreciate if we can please defer to them and see what they have to say. Sxologist (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Snooganssnoogans, another user (DetectiveDroopy) has reincluded the study you cited with this edit. I only want to comment that when there is an appropriate secondary source (there may already be one) it would be good to replace this primary source with it. Perhaps Flyer22 Frozen will offer her thoughts here? I was pretty stringent in my comments above however primary source research is not always bad, but I do think it opens the door to more questionable research which I wouldn't want included. Thanks. Sxologist (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should try to avoid primary sources for this topic. WP:SCHOLARSHIP explains why very well. If we have a secondary source and the primary source doesn't offer anything as a supplement, why use it? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sxologist, I was guided by the following paragraph in WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". This article has been published in the American Sociological Review, which is regarded as the most prestigious journal in Sociology. Moreover, it is unclear why the study by Rosenfeld (2010) in Demography is included if only review papers are allowed. The study I included is the first study in this topic to use administrative population data and therefore improves on the methodology in this research. Whether the results are wrong or not is not even that important in my opinion as this section deals with methodology and the study clearly offers a methodological improvement. It is also unclear to me why this study would suddenly be regarded as correct if a review paper in a lower-ranked journal cites it.

Removing Deadname in Trans Parenting Section

Hi all! I was perusing this page and noticed that one of the examples in the Trans Parenting section includes the deadname of an individual: "In 2001, Leslie (formerly Howard) Forester...". For those who don't know, the term 'deadname' refers to the name assigned to a trans or gender non-conforming individual at birth which they have changed. Most of the time, this name represents a time before a gender non-conforming person transitioned, and can be very distressing to hear. I argue that this should be taken out, both for this reason, and because it is irrelevant and adds no additional information. Her name is Leslie, and we shouldn't disrespect her by putting her deadname there. Additionally, Leslie is likely her legal name now, which makes the deadname obsolete. (Sneezygirl) (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Good catch. FYI, the guideline to reference in these situations is MOS:DEADNAME. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the names here are all of private individuals, I removed them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we want to err on the safe side (as you say in the edit summary), then we should remove them here as well, and an admin should hide the history versions with the names both in the article and in this talk page. Sigur (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a privacy issue that requires revision deletion, but I'm not opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Trans parenting section

@Majormeg: I'd like to suggest trimming the new section a little - I don't really see the utility of talking in a general sense, in that level of detail, about the fact that transphobia exists, with vague allusions to it being a stressor, simply because the study in question focused on trans people who were parents. The studies' specific statements about its impact on parenting are the relevant parts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Roscelese Thanks for your suggestion! This was my first edit on wikipedia, so I appreciate the feedback. I did trim down the section based on your comment and I agree that most of the information for the first study that I mentioned was pretty general and less directly influencing parenting. Let me know if you have anything else. Majormeg (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've reverted the change of "scientific consensus" to "some studies" given that the former is more accurate, and while I haven't read each individual study cited (or checked it for RS compliance), I'm not inclined to be generous in light of the whopper that that edit led with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't revert a properly sourced NOPV'd edit because "I don't trust it" - this is ridiculous. I am calling a Wikipedia administrator for a review. I am a biologist and an LGBT person myself. I quoted several respectable sources all in respected journals, including an extensive literature review, and it was all reversed with a reason "I don't believe it". This is outrageous. I reverted your revert, do not touch it until the administrators step in, as I will revert it back again. It doesn't matter whatever you like it or not, there is no consensus as new research with varying results, which has to be pointed out in a good article. Wikipedia is not your private sandbox, and this is not a type of support we, LGBT people and our partners need. A real scientist follows where facts go, not where they wish them to go. I have no idea what to comment on "I didn't read the sources, but I am going to revert anyway" - it is lamentable. Platyna (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure which administrator you have summoned or how. (I can't see this posted on any of the Administrators' noticeboards.) I'm not an administrator but I've had a look at it.

Roscelese was right to revert those changes. They contain some content that is shockingly bad. It is very poorly written and seems highly polemical. I'm not sure that I would have called it a "whopper" as that might be seen as implying deliberate bad faith but, whatever the intention, those were not good additions.

For example, lets look at the initial bit: "However extensive literature review done in 2015 points out that children raised in homosexual family do have issues". The use of the vague term "issues" rather than anything specific and the sentence starting with "However" are both indicative of poorly written content that fails to say anything meaningful. It implies something without actually saying what. Investigating the reference used for that sentence, I quickly realised that it was trying to pass off a paper from an explicitly religious organisation as representing the scientific consensus on the subject. This is no impartial meta-analysis of the literature! Even if it were suitable for use at all, it should not be promoted with peacock terms like "extensive literature review". The rest of the additions seem similarly polemic and non-neutral. This is no good at all and I've reverted back to the older version. Looking at some other recent additions, I think some of them are polemic in the other direction and I have trimmed some of those as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I am concerned by one of the edit summaries that was used when he bad content was added. This is unacceptable. It completely fails to accurately describe the change and it casts completely unjustified aspersions on previous editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What does not accurately describe LGBT parenting is just one type of results and false claims of a consensus, while there is none. I am an impartial scientist, my direction is where the research goes. I asked for admin review, stop reverting my changes. I wrote my edit according to all Wikipedia editing rules, that includes NPOV, what you do is a vandalism. You can't deny research you don't like, this is cherry-picking and censorship. Also, reading with understanding is required when reading - "issues" are listed in points in a "consensus" section, all backed up by research. What you call unacceptable is NPOV - some researchers have positive results some negative, many, which is a stance I agree on is that longitudinal studies are required as current followup is too short and not diverse enough (when it comes to diversity of populations) also the methods to conduct this research are also not mature enough, plus, which is the major problem, blatantly visible here, the subject is deeply politicized, and there are whole groups of so-called "allies" who, mostly with good intentions, but not so good outcomes, are disrupting the scientific deliberations. We, LGBT people, don't need you to falsify current scientific status, most of us are normal people, who really can cope with facts, no matter of what they are and have our children wellbeing as a priority. Knowing all the facts lets people to make informed decisions about their family and children, and this is a right you cannot, on whim, remove from us. Platyna (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CarlyBurks.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RadRemi. Peer reviewers: Lilysloan1, Sedersta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhannguyen2002. Peer reviewers: AdamTski, Rdispenza12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y

[2] ttp://freemarry.3cdn.net/7ff283327f0b9a3ad0_6nm6bnjvk.pdf

[3] ttp://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/20/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/

[4] ttp://nooganomics.com/2015/04/warning-from-canada-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-rights/

[5] ttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]