Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The page was userfied per discussion with the main author of the page.

Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ

[edit]

This FAQ looks like an attempt by a editor biased in favour of LGBT parenting (understatement) to have his personal opinions stated as fact and to get ownership of the article. The FAQ looks like it was simply lifted from the evolution one with some things changed (Teach the Controversy refers to a campaign by the Discovery Institute intelligent design group, so its use here is erroneous). Those FAQs (evolution, global warming etc.) are about scientific ideas whereas this isn't. I'm not knowledgeable about the research into LGBT parenting, but the FAQ is evidently heavily biased. There is a recently opened mediation cabal case about this article, of which this FAQ is within scope. Not even sure such an article needs a FAQ, but if it does, it should be written by a group of unbiased editors with full knowledge of the research. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments and also don't see any need for such an opinionated FAQ. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally unprecedented for a user who wrote he is not knowledgeable about the research into LGBT parenting themself to claim that my personal opinions are stated as a fact. The primary reasons for creating Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ are exactly the same as in Talk:Evolution/FAQ - to prevent editors like you with limited knowledge to declare existing very broad and undisputed worldwide scientific consensus and conclusive research beyond serious debate documented by the most reliable sources possible as a personal opinion. It is alarming and it illustrates how much is the FAQ needed. --Destinero (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense ,this is the free to edit wiki and users should be encouraged to easily edit, and those users are not supposed to be experts just to have reliable citations, creating an opinionated FAQ to refer contributors to simply appears as ownership and control of the article. Its not needed and we are better off without it. It was written by a single user wasn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:RELIABLE recommendation it is clearly stated: "Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)"
You essentialy claim that since I created FAQ in full compliance with the fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendations that it should be deleted due to alleged personal bias? Are you really serious? Please educate yourself first both in terms of LGBT research and Wikipedia rules, then try to promote the FAQ for deletion. --Destinero (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia where it is clearly stated: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources for something, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." you simply can not just come and want to delete a FAQ in full compliance with Wikipedia policies just because you don't like it and don't like the facts of the world we live in. --Destinero (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing here is that the FAQ is needed to prevent the same discussion over and over again as in last few years. There is no long-term active editor of the article like me who has developed the majority of its content. There is only some users from time to time who provide feedback to the content shared in reduced form on Talk pages of articles like Same-sex marriage or Homosexuality. --Destinero (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit in an attempt to reach consensus. Destinero, however, reverted all edits without discussion.Tobit2 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, didn't know what discussion led to the FAQ, if any. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire FAQ seems like a premptive way to shut down any discussion that the main editors of the page disagree with. Can we have a pointer at the consensus building before the FAQ page was created and linked? Hasteur (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what exactly could someone disagree with according to Wikipedia policies? Franky, there is nothing. The prelavence of viewpoint prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant. Firtly, you need to change NPOV to be able push tiny marginal views without empirial scientific support. Honestly, I don't believe you can be successful. --Destinero (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there was no discussion on the talk page about making the FAQ section (except a 1 sided "Why are you doing this")? I'm sure that editors of the article and the talk page can use the Version History and Talk archives to understand why a particular argument has failed. If a revision violates core wiki policies revert it, warn the user, and move on. Hasteur (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Forum shopping to get the content either changed or removed because the POV of the FAQ is not shared by the initatior some editors. This is misuse of process to obtain a outcome that is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite startling accusations you make, and from an administrator no less. How can I be forum shopping or have a POV when this is the first action I have ever initiated within the topic of LGBT parenting? The article needs a fundamental rewrite to adhere to neutral point of view. And there doesn't appear to be consensus for a FAQ in the first place, nevermind the FAQ as it now. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This FAQ has been under a lot of edit warring about the content, and this is just the next place that it pops up. Aka, forum shopping. Not everything has to reach first consensus. Many edits are made without that and if it stands, it is assumed to have consensus. So, if you feel this FAQ should not exist al all, why didn't you bring it up at the talk page of the main article to start with? No, apparently you have such a strong POV that your self-admitted first action on this FAQ is to nominate it for deletion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I think the nom is in good faith. This hit AN/I earlier and Chris found his way to it from there. The correct way to remove disputed content is in a deletion discussion for the reason that it encourages involvement of third party editors. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nom is to solve a content dispute, not a dispute about whether the FAQ should exist or not. That hasn't been discussed anywhere yet. To add, the nominator states: I'm not knowledgeable about the research into LGBT parenting, but the FAQ is evidently heavily biased. This sentence is by itself contradictory. You cannot determine if it is biased if you do not know enough about the topic. As such, I think this is a bad nom based on prejudice on the topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still continuing to assign motives to other editors on baseless grounds? As for your claim, you don't need to be nose deep in research to see blatant POV-pushing. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, tell me one thing that is blatantly POV and cannot be backed up by actual research. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it treats the topic of LGBT parenting as a science topic (inappropriately), it compares the opposition view to the Flat Earth theory, the writing is evidently biased, "mostly ideology-based"?? I think however it's best if we let others join in this debate. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why is LGBT parenting NOT a science topic? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like parenting in general, it can be a topic of scientific study, but it is not, in and of itself, a science.Tobit2 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is not a science, it is a science TOPIC, aka, something researched in science. CC is claiming it is NOT a science topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. My meaning is evident. Or can you name the science that LGBT falls under? Physics? I gave you examples of POV, but you failed to respond, choosing to play word games. Clearly you're just wasting my time and there'll be no more discussion. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under sciences such as sociology, psychology, etc. But I get the point, you are unable to come up with an actual POV in the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be parsing words. The point, of course, is that like all forms of parenting, the scope of information goes beyond scientific inquiry and extends into cultural and social phenomenon.Tobit2 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But the popular opinion that gay parenting is bad for the children is NOT supported by any evidence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but seems irrelevant. It may be supported by philosophical, legal, ethical, or even mathematical arguments, all of which may be equally valid as a evidence produced in a scientific study. Again, I am not sure, though, why this line of thinking is relevant. We seem to have already concluded that LGBT parenting, like all forms of parenting, is not a scientific discipline.Tobit2 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying that the opinion that LGBT parenting is bad for the children based on say phylosophical arguments should have the same weight as actual studies that look into the issue and copme to the coinclusion that it is not bad for the children? Yes, LGBT parenting is not a science discipline, but it is a topic of scientific research. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to the present discussion. But, if you are sincerely interested, I will be happy to converse with you about it on a user page.Tobit2 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was at the hart of the argument of CC, so yes, it is was relevant, but I get it that you do not want to discuss it on the merits. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested examples of POV: POV comes in two forms: 1) ignoring contradictory statements, example: in the first sentence we see, "the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion." Untrue. There are academics who have disputed the extrapolation of the data done in the studies, but this is being ignored. The current dispute on Wiki began with the attempt to ignore the late Professor Nock and 2) dressing up opinions made for courts of law as representing peer-reviewed research: much of the text in the FAQ comes from affadavidts not journals, where non-neutral supporters are attempting to convince the court. An example of this is where we see the statements that a say large number of professional organizations support LGBT parenting and therefore it must be sound science. Actually, some of the groups like the APA have come out in support not because of the science but rather the lack of evidence against lgbt parenting when balanced against the very real fact the children of lgbt couples have more difficulty getting health insurance. This is a misrepresentation designed for debate.Tobit2 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That there are academics that make claims like gay parenting is bad, true. Unfortunately, they cannot back it up with data. This has happened repeatedly in the courts (California, Florida, Arkansas) where the judges after hearing experts of bothh sides bring the best evidence forward have systematically concluded that the expert testimony of the opponents is unreliable and have entered judgment accordingly. Relying on the opinions of academics without a backup to actual data is nothing more than an argument by authority, not facts. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, dissenting experts generally use the data provided by supporters since it is the only thing available. That said, we are not debating here whether or not experts who dissent are correct. That's for the article. You may wish to contribute to it! Please do so, because I'd like to stop :) .Tobit2 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that the FAQ is biased. I have not seen any evidence other than assertions by a few editors that it is POV. If you claim it is POV, back it up. Otherwise, take your own POV and go edit some other articles at WP. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the above where I provided two direct examples. I believe there seems to be a consensus on this page from most people who looked at this FAQ, that it is indeed a very biased, slanted, and unwelcoming.Tobit2 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you or other thinks is completely irrelevant here. The only relevant thing are Wikipedia policies which ask for the most reliable sources available and describe the controversy based on reliable secondary source. You were unable to provide a single one. Nock is a demographer without any knowledge and education of the relevant field (developmental psychlogy). Thus, resolved. --Destinero (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you think is the only relevant thing here? Because I disagree with you and that is the whole point of why the FAQ has a problem. It does not allow reasonable people to disagree.Tobit2 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you maybe is not a reasonable person if you don't understand that it is a violation of NPOV and Reliable source to promote a marginal and unfounded view a person (Nock) which is not educated and experienced in the relevant field (development psychology). I can not imagine anybody with half brain to assert that a demography is more relevant to LGBT parenting than developmental psychology and that including a marginal unfounded views not possible to find in peer-reviewed research literature and refused by all main expert bodies as you continually do it. --Destinero (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong to compare objections to LGBT parenting to Flat earth concept when both have the same scientific and expert support (= none)? It illustrates the point very well. Just because few educated experts belief something which has no support in science and empirism, it does not belong to the encyclopedia which souhld provide users as top quality and verifiable content by scredible sources as possible. Wikipedia should not to misinform the readers! --Destinero (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is none. It is only never-ending "I have absolutely no knowledge of the topic but it certainly must be POV of one editor which do not comply with my beliefs and so it must be deleted" repeated piece of crap. --Destinero (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just another editor without knowledge screaming about POV pushing? Please wake up and go to American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association of Social Workers, Canadian Psychological Association, Australial Psychological Society, Justice Department of Canada, Pediatrics and Child Development journals explain that you are the One who knows everything and that they all hundreds of thousand experts are lying about current state of all scientific research. It is ridiculous and laughable. :-) --Destinero (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you stil inable to understand that the FAQ is written strictly in full compliance with NPOV? NPOV directly require not to include unfounded gossip which maybe half USA still believe as in Evolution example. Encyclopedia has educative character, it should not to be propaganda of unfounded views which has no basis in science! --Destinero (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuosly unable to identify concrete violations of Neutral point of view? Be constructive, be factual/concrete! So far you provided nothing except your assumptions about topic you have no knowledge about as wrote yourself at the beginning of this page. --Destinero (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first you have to prove which viewpoint of reliable secondary source in LGBT parenting and its FAQ was supressed according to NPOV policy. But you have nothing. Bad luck. --Destinero (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Forum shopping to get the content either changed or removed because the POV of the FAQ is not shared by the initatior some editors" - Your mistake here is that there shouldn't be a POV at all in the FAQ, per WP:NPOV. There shouldn't be a POV for anyone to agree or disagree with. -- Atama頭 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "There shouldn't be a POV for anyone to agree or disagree with." Some topics, the POV of the large majority of the population differs from the cold hard facts collected by science. if that happens, the POV of the majority is irrelevant. But once again, if you think that the FAQ has a POV, fo over there and discuss the details instead of just wanting it deleted. The discussion whether the FAQ should exists in the first place is about its function, not its content. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is your mistake, man. This is essentially same as in Talk:Evolution/FAQ where some editors and 43 % of Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#United_States) believe in Creationism or Intelligent design whereas 99,99% of US biologists point out to the scientific facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends Similarly in [[1]] It is your problem if you believe nonsense with minimal support of educated experts in the relevant fields who have the latest info and complete knowledge not problem of Wikipedia articles nor policies. --Destinero (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for consensus where one long term editor continuosly discuss over and over again over the years the same arguments and where are the very broad consensus on Wikipedia pillar policies and recommendations. In fact, the FAQ is NPOV since it fullfill EVERY OF THE ALL NECESSITIES DECLARED IN NPOV. Finally, if you don not think so, you should be able to identify precise points which the FAQ do not fullfill according to you, right? --Destinero (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Heavily smacks of pov dressed up as consensus and policy. This FAQ essentially seems to say "here's how things are, if you disagree you're an ignorant fool." The basic idea of an FAQ for this page is a good one, but as it is this page has a tone that is not only pov-slanted, but borderline insulting.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be conscructive, be concrete! Why are opponents continuosly unable to identify problems with NPOV? Your accusations just melt away. --Destinero (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, you seem to be taking every comment rather personally. I assure you, nothing is intended that way. Now then, to my reading, nearly the entire thing presents a pov. You seem rather keen on making comparisons to Talk:Evolution/FAQ (indeed, several sections of this page are nearly verbatim copies of that page) so let's compare to that article. First, I feel compelled to point out that our article on evolution DOES, in fact refer to controversy on the subject. See Evolution#Social and cultural responses. This does not go into detail on intelligent design and so forth, and indeed, it should not, but it does acknowledge a history of debate on the subject. That aside, my main objection is that, while the FAQ makes numerous references to supposedly flawed studies, I don't see any real presentation of them or analysis thereof. What I do say seems to amount to saying "they" disagree but "they" are wrong. What would help, in terms of achieving a more neutral point of view, would be to address the issues in more specifics. I'd also suggest the wording in the first question be modified a bit. The facts are not wrong, but the tone seems a little too patronizing. This is no surprise, given its source from the evolution article. That is very much "hard" science, while parenting, child development, and psychology, while certainly not unscientific, are also easily classifed as "social sciences", and thus, in the interest of civility if nothing else, ought to take something of a softer tone. I must admit, under a deeper examination the page is not as irredeemable as I initially thought, but I still believe that such a page, which presents its content as an established consensus, should meet the highest standards, and this one, while an important step in that direction, just isn't there. That said, I'd not at all oppose it if other editors were willing to label it as work in progress, rather than an absolute reflection of consensus.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who want to delete the FAQ, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion you are obliged to point out to the reasons why the FAQ should be deleted. Without that, the deletion process is waste of time. --Destinero (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the tags "NPOV" is the alternative to the deletion policy, but because you dispute it's use entireley for the subpage, this becomes the next recourse. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Deletion should generally be the last resort, with a few exceptions (blatant spam, BLPs, etc.). Probably the next step 'should have been an WP:RFC or WP:MEDIATION. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - As cited above and below, the writing, tone, and general combativeness assumes bad faith, is not inclusive or colaberative, and leads to questions of ownership. In addition the grammar, spelling, and sentence construction seems off as though it's being spliced from somewhere else. Userfy the FAQ until a community consensus can be established as the current FAQ fosters a combative editing enviroment.Hasteur (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the combative editing environment leads the continuous incapability all of you to provide a single documented violation OF NPOV or other mandatory policies on FAQ and article whose content is used in several other much visited articles like Same-sex marriage where very broad editor consensus developer over years. --Destinero (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NPOV. This FAQ states that controversies shouldn't be mentioned because they only occur "in social areas like politics and religion". If a controversy is noteworthy then it should be included in the encyclopedia if it can be properly sourced. I appreciate wanting to avoid undue weight but this FAQ seems to go overboard in its suppression of information and requiring that only scientifically-proven matters can be included, especially in a topic that has many social ramifications. -- Atama頭 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy should be dealt with in specialized articles such as Societal attitudes toward homosexuality] similarly as is the case of Objections to evolution or Creation–evolution controversy or could be briefly described as a political, social or religious beliefs as is the case in Global_warming#Views_on_global_warming. But nobody could point out on the controvery on the relevant expert and scientific fields simple since there is none. You cannot push marginal ideology-based beliefs and do propaganda for them just because they have no support in scienfitic research! Everyone on this page knows that the real reason for attempt to delete the FAQ is the personal, ideological or religious problem of some editors with scientifically based facts. But Wikipedia content have to stick to the cornerstone policies to describe scientific consensus and left out marginal views with no support in facts on which is broad consensus. --Destinero (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody on this page voting for a deletion should be aware of the facts that the FAQ and LGBT parenting article and Homosexuality and Same-sex marriage pages all provide the same NPOV. If you have problem with the FAQ where you have been the last few years when the broad consensus among editors developed on the form and content referring to tge LGBT parenting topic? It is too much late to push your personal values up to the reliable sources, isn't it? --Destinero (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to review Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Assuming ideological motives on the part of anyone who disagrees with you is not conductive to progress in a collaborative environment.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to remember the facts that the only logical explanation for disagreement on this is ideological ones. It is my opponents in the discussion who continuously fail to identify concrete violations of NPOV policies in my edits. It is completely their inability not mine. --Destinero (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem: you keep reducing things to an "us vs them" type of situation, with you pushing TheTruth™ and anyone who feels the slightest bit differently as pushing some backward ideology. That's just not the case: we're all trying to improve Wikipedia, we just have different opinions on how to do it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atama. Talk:LGBT parenting notes that this document is a representation of consensus among the editors of that article, but I can find no evidence to suggest that consensus exists - which isn't itself a deal-breaker. But then we consider the FAQ itself, and the flaws are apparent (mainly in referring to the topic as a scientific one, with language to match, rather than a social topic, and in numerous science examples (as with the Flat Earth example) that do not pertain to this topic). Copyediting could remedy some of the flaws, and I see that that was attempted earlier today to little avail. This document, being in the form of a FAQ, takes on a level of authority that demands broad consensus - and that's not what we have here. It should be "We're asked these questions repeatedly, and these are the answers typically given". Alternatively, Moving the FAQ to a userspace or WP-space draft may be in order, both to facilitate the Mediation Cabal proceeding and to permit time to revise and extend the content. I appreciate that this is a good-faith attempt to solve a problem and improve the article, but it needs broader input. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The foremost reason for the FAQ is to prevent some minority propaganda group to portrait that there is some expert or scientific controversy where there is none. The purpose of the FAQ is not to eliminate social, political or religious attitudes. But they should be framed as beliefs and attitudes where the abilities of parents and outcomes of children is scientifically valid facts. Like it or not.--Destinero (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it has been written by a single purpose account whot appears to also hold strong personal opinions about the issue, when one editor attempts to control an article like this there is a net negative effect on the NPOV aspect of the article or any article where a single opinionated single purpose contributer controls an article in such a way as to write themselves a FAQ for all other users to adhere too. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The foremost reason for the FAQ is to prevent the loss of editor and administrator time by repeatedly dealing with the same questions and concerns from editors new to the article (or the topic). It has the same function, in theory, that pages such as Wikipedia:Perennial proposals do for the project; people come up with ideas and suggestions all the time, and providing a concise and clear rationale for why the idea isn't going to be acted upon is a net positive for all concerned. Here, an editor raises an issue of controversy, criticism, or some similar proposal, and they can be pointed to the FAQ as a means of explaining why the idea is unlikely to be acted upon. The article has a particular status quo, and it is that way because of X, Y, and Z - that is why we have the FAQ. We don't push the majority POV, nor do we endorse it as the FAQ appears to. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that scientific evidence is considered relevant to this theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that gay and lesbian person are unfit parents. Empirical research can’t reconcile disputes about core values, but it is very good at addressing questions of fact. For this reason it is cricitally important to stick to its policies of verifiability from reliable sources and undue weight. Nobody has been able to undermine the scientific and factual part of the article yet. Without it further discussion is actually useless. See it or not. --Destinero (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically since june 2009 the article has been written by User Destinero and that is imo already one sided and we do not need hid FAQ to train any passer by contributors to his position as well. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Same-sex marriage and Homosexuality articles have been developed by many editors and include essentialy the same information as more specialized and detailed LGBT parenting article. Please stop lying about one-sided position where broad consensus of editors among many topic-related articles obviously does exist. --Destinero (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the FAQ
[edit]
  • Comment. We repeatedly discuss the issue of NPOV, but we haven't gotten into the details. I believe that this is in deference to Destinero, who wrote the FAQ, as noting areas of possible POV amounts to calling him/her out on their bias. So, in advance, let me stress that I don't intend to imply bias in any way - but these are the NPOV issues as I see them. I'm basing this on the current version of the FAQ, as I write this - here.
  • Summary item 1: The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Credible scientific researchers may hold other opinions - as I'm sure many of them do. But this article includes only opinions backed by the appropriate peer-reviewed research. Disagreeing does not make a scientist less credible. To be honest, the language proposed earlier that finished this line with "are backed by a consensus of researchers." would be both simpler and more neutral.
  • Question 1: Criticisms are not added to the article because of the "...enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of LGBT parenting...", among other reasons. This answer seems to be too firmly pro-LGBT Parenting. It refers to ideological objections being irrelevant to the science of LGBT parenting, which - while true as far as it goes - does nothing to acknowledge that such objections do indeed exist. The focus of this answer should be based firmly in policy - No objections have been added to date because none have been based on reliable sources.
  • Question 2: The answer to this question is a long and detailed defense of LGBT Parenting. It lists a variety of reliable and unbiased sources to demonstrate that LGBT Parenting is deemed uncontroversial by the Scientific community. Which is fine, but that's not the question - the question asks why Wikipedia does not teach about the controversy surrounding LGBT Parenting. The current answer handwaves this with a "there is no real controversy. Move along."
  • Question 4: This answer to the question "What about the scientific evidence against the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children?" begins with "To be frank, there isn't any." It goes into what appears to be a well written and well reasoned defense of LGBT Parenting. A second paragraph notes, correctly, that nothing can be included in the article without the appropriate research from an independent, reliable source (typically in the form of a peer-reviewed publication). That second paragraph is sufficient - We have no evidence from reliable sources to suggest that - but if you find some, bring it to the talk page for discussion. The rest is superfluous, and speaks to a pro-LGBT Parenting POV.
  • These are just the issues as I see them. I believe Desintero has made a good-faith effort at tackling what can be a controversial issue, but in doing so he/she appears to have tilted things too far the other way. I support moving this to the WP space or someone's userspace for development, but it is inappropriate to keep it as an authoritative FAQ for this article, in its current form. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I've been heavily involved at the iPhone article for a long time and we set up a similar FAQ on the talk page because the same questions were asked over and over. I am very sympathetic to the need to avoid the same old arguments over and over again that have been answered countless times, especially in regards to controversies (that is one of the big problems at the iPhone article). But I don't think this FAQ is grounded in policy and it hasn't been formed from a consensus (it has been argued here that the contents of this FAQ were decided unilaterally by a single editor). -- Atama頭 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I only want to point out that both http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution/FAQ&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming/FAQ&action=history have undergone long development to their's current version. And indeed the LGBT parenting FAQ does need to start somewhere. "Credible scientific researchers may hold other opinions - as I'm sure many of them do." This is the central point. There are not any. :-) Really. How they could be when no research suggest otherwise? Till you be able to prove by the same level credible source as is the http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123248173/HTMLSTART and peer reviewed articles of highly experienced researchers in prestigeous journal http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf brief to conter the statement the fact is so central it should stay. "Disagreeing does not make a scientist less credible." It is certainly so. But the point is that their education, experiences, awards or impact factors could well measure a level of difference. The most credible (objectively) researchers of developmental psychology in the World hold the same opinion, simply since none research suggest superiority of opposite-sex parents. "A second paragraph notes, correctly, that nothing can be included in the article without the appropriate research from an independent, reliable source (typically in the form of a peer-reviewed publication). That second paragraph is sufficient - We have no evidence from reliable sources to suggest that - but if you find some, bring it to the talk page for discussion. The rest is superfluous, and speaks to a pro-LGBT Parenting POV." I can see now your point. You are right. I am going to improve it accordingly. --Destinero (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't that the sources were wrong, or unreliable, or otherwise flawed - my point was that they have absolutely no place in the FAQ. We aren't making the case for (or against) LGBT Parenting, all the FAQ needs to do is explain why certain things are or are not addressed. This page, even with the changes you've made (thank you btw), still advocates for LGBT parenting by presenting the evidence as to why it is beneficial. It does not need to, nor should it - this is just about the article, not the subject. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 05:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a FAQ designed to help initiate newcomers to a conversation, based on a quorum of editors. This is soapboxing and POV-pushing. Whether it's correct or not is a matter of interpretation, but either way it does the article a disservice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per previous comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after much consideration. The FAQ seems to be designed, probably in good faith, to systematically discount all other information in relation to this issue. It comes across quite strongly as a POV and attempts to tone that down have not worked (it has all been reverted). The article itself seems contentious but I am not sure such a strong FAQ, discluding a lot of the criticism is the right approach. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the FAQ will be deleted then the arbitration will settle the matter right. Because it is startling so much editors are absolutely unable to understand and adhere to the NPOV policy. --Destinero (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but threatening arbitration is absolutely the wrong way to convince editors to keep the page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (haven't quite made up my mind): I do not like the strong wording of the current FAQ, or the analogy to the Evolution FAQ, with the implicit suggestion that the science of evolution and of LGBT parenting are on some similar level. Evolution is backed by decades of really extensive research in many fields, and has a theoretical basis, again in many fields (see Evidence of common descent). I accept that social issues can be studied scientifically, but such studies (with no theoretical underpinning other than commonsense) do not approach the support available for a hard science. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite simple: There are decades of research and hundred of studies from all over the world. It is possible to compare parents and children (psychologically, their success in life and education and so on) an it became owerhelmingly clear that there are no marked differences between same-sex parents and their children and other population and that predictors of children's outcome are within the quality of relationship at home and the quality of the parenting not the sexual orientation or sex of parents. Since nobody can dispute that, the FAQ is correct and pretty much needed to explain those things. --Destinero (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- one person's write-up doesn't make an FAQ. The fact that this FAQ has refs which basically repeat the preferred text of the article shows that it tries to "cement" the preferred version by giving it some official talkpage-header. It reads as, "here's the correct version, if you disagree, stay away from the talkpage". I can already see how any discussion will be killed with "shut up, see FAQ". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what arguments do you have to discussion to be developed in compliance with Wikipedia NPOV, Undue weight and Reliable sources? None? Oops. Next irrelevant remark documenting how much is the FAQ needed. --Destinero (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop that crap; next time it's an NPA-warning. You do not have to repeat all wikipeia-policies on every damn talkpage. What you typed up is a summary of your preferred version, plain and simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuously unable to provide a single reason documenting that there is a one person POV bias in the FAQ whereas it is based on the most reliable sources possible in this world? Are you serious or rather ignorant? This is the essentially same situation as in Evolution or Global warning FAQ. A lot of people don't understand it at first, too. --Destinero (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Atama and UltraExactZZ above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been cautioned and warned several times that your stance is on the razor edge of being a personal attack. At best it's wiki-lawyering to get your way, at worst it's a direct violation of NPA, AGF, and NPOV Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I pointed out that all this silly discussion documents that the majority of commenters are unable to understand NPOV and Undue weight policy and their steps are completely in direct violation of NPOV! --Destinero (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Desintero, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about this topic, but you need to bring it down a notch. Editors can disagree about how policy is interpreted - indeed, that's the very core of this consensus-driven project. If lots of editors disagree with your interpretation of policy, it's a good bet that your interpretation of policy - not theirs - may be flawed. Such is life on Wikipedia - that's what discussion is for. But an editor is not incapable of rational thought merely because they disagree with you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz, NPOV Undue weight stay higher than this discussion. Till my opponents in the discussion stay unable to provide the sources of the same quality to support their views that there is a controversy the reality is they have not a single reason and argument to support deletion of the FAQ. I repeat again, I am not against to include popular views, but they should be framed as such and the scientifically based fact have a critically important role here to be mentioned, too. It is nothing wrong to describe popular and religious opinion. But Wikipedia policies requires to be framed as those and to explain why those popular and religious views are about core values but not about the facts that the same-sex parents and their children as a group do not differ in comparison with other-sex parents and their children and that those popular and religious views have none support in the facts backed by science. There is only one science. Either the groups do not differ or do differ. Burden of proof is on those who claim that the group differ so that it is hurtful for the children. But they are unable to do so since all research failed to find the negative connection. --Destinero (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Destinero, back up a bit. We're talking about the FAQ, not the article. LGBT parenting the article needs to be well-researched and factual, and only information that is properly and rigorously sourced to independent, Reliable sources - in this case, the scientific sources you cite - should be included in the article. But for the FAQ, we need absolutely none of that. This is the core issue with the FAQ. At present, as we have discussed, the FAQ restates positions from the article, defending them with sources. The result is that the FAQ is presenting the position backed by those sources - in this case, a Pro-LGBT Parenting position. We do not need paragraphs of sources to defend the contents of the article. What we need, for example, is "We don't discuss criticisms in detail, because no criticisms have been presented with the support of reliable sources." That line, or one similar, would cover 95% of the Frequently Asked Questions surrounding this particular article, assuming consensus even permits a FAQ for this article, which may or may not be the case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Desintero, also consider this gem (attributed to Golda Meir): "We define objectivity as a 100% agreement with our point of view" ... Hmm. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The G8 criteria doesn't fit here - this page is a subpage of Talk:LGBT parenting, and is thus useful to the project (at least insofar as the speedy deletion criteria are concerned). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this discussion and because of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ&diff=382123276&oldid=382120901 is thery any objection to the improved and balanced version of the Talk:LGBT parenting/FAQ --Destinero (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worse. You took the Q out of FAQ and turned it into even more of a personal essay. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely okay? How direct quotation of the policies and guidelines yould be a personal essay??? --Destinero (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a crack at it, Destinero.... unfortunately, it isn't quite what I was going for in my earlier comment. My suggestion, and this might be a better exercise for a userspace draft of the FAQ than this MFD, would be to limit the FAQ to broad answers in general terms. Take the question "Why doesn't the article mention a particular controversy?" The answer needs to be as simple and neutral as possible. In this case, the answer would read, in its entirety "We don't include controversal opinions about LGBT Parenting unless they are supported by Reliable sources. If you find such sources, bring them to the talk page for discussion before including them in the article." And that's it. We don't need to discuss the sources from the article at all - that's why we have the article. Other questions could be answered similarly. If we have what's there, and I agree that it is more neutral, then we might as well not bother with the FAQ. I believe we can answer questions about specific issues with the LGBT parenting article without getting into the meat of the topic of LGBT parenting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand you. Tere is no "Why doesn't the article mention a particular controversy?" question. Where you read it? We are discussing the current state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ --Destinero (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The page falls under "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace." I have not read the entire discussion, but in scanning I saw frequent references in the Keep becuase of one tendentious editor. The appropriate method would be to deal with that tendentious editor. Also references that people come with the same inappropriate beliefs, then there should be multiple well documented consensus discussions in the talk archive to point people to. Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I am in fact, bisexual, and I agree that LGBT parenting is proven to be equal to that of heterosexual parenting. But this FAQ is the POV of one editor and basically tells anyone with another point of view to fuck off, because "i said so and the studies say so". The author keeps coming back with the same line about how the scientific consensus is pro lgbt parenting and asks for any sources to disagree with him/her. However he/she is missing the point of the discussion, this discussion is about the FAQ. This FAQ should not stand, and the article should take into account religious and societal views, even though that is not the point of this discussion, I just thought I'd add in my two cents. --Javsav (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid Speedy reason. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSD Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ&oldid=1142594485"