Talk:Mark Regnerus

Misdescription of Regnerus study
I'm about to change the statement "Regnerus has conducted research seeking to determine whether being raised by same-sex parents is more detrimental than being raised by an opposite-sex couple", and wanted to cover the explanation for the change here to discourage automatic reversion. While this is the use that the Regnerus study has been put to politically, it is not what the study was. It separated children who had a parent who the child believes to have at some point during their childhood been involved in a a same-sex relationship.... whether or not that parent was raising the child at the time or, really, any time. Very few of the subjects of the study were raised for any significant amount of time by same-sex couples. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed.  Is Regnerus notable outside the one discredited study?  It seems to me that there's a BLP1E argument for refactoring this to an article on the study, but I suppose it's debatable whether that is a single "event".  Probably not.  *shrug*.  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I retract my idea here, his citation counts almost certainly meet WP:PROF. I'm surprised, but it's not a close call.  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards
I've deleted the Marcatornet award from the lede, because after doing a google search for Regnerus "Dignatarian of the year", I got only 37 real results (ignore Google's fake hit count that it starts with), the majority of which were from mercatornet itself. This does not seem to be a key descriptor for him, and does not belong in the lede; were there an Awards section, it might be appropriate there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks (though it has already been reverted back in again). I think the other award mentioned in the lead should be moved to an awards section as well.  I'm not going to edit again for now; don't like getting close to 3RR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with adding an awards section. But until that is done the recognition should be left and not repeatedly deleted. Just because the recognition only has 37 results does not mean it is not accurate and worth noting.Camus48 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I placed the Mercatornet award back in next to the Distinguished Article Award as it seems the best place to place it for now.Dr thermano (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved the Awards down to an Awards section. Having done that, I still see no sign that the MercatorNet material really belongs in the article. It's an obscure award, never before awarded, and not getting significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC) And it appears to be a fairly obscure website, not in the top 100,000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Scholastic criticisms
I added a description of the "audit" which was conducted by the publisher of the study and listed a reference. I also added that among the scholarly criticism was also unscholarly criticism of Regnerus himself (same reference from the National Association of Scholars). 24.92.249.215 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you added descriptions, but the source, you're using is an opinion piece in a publication that raises strong concerns as a reliable source, as reading through the two discussions I find for it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (this one and this other one). Despite the friendly name of the group that publishes it, to represent someone's opinion in it is being indicative of "scholarly circles" seems misleading. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are reasonable concerns. They are reinforced by considering our own articles on the organisation and its journal: National Association of Scholars and Academic Questions.  There's no indication from the journal home page that it is a peer-reviewed journal; even if it were, we'd still probably want to worry about the fact that it has a readily identifiable political agenda.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I have done more work and agree that my reference to NAS can't really meet the "reliable source" rigor in this context. Thank you for the challenge and I stand corrected and informed. I would next like to propose some additional editing for the article here that I feel will add more information and neutrality to the views expressed.  First I would like to add a reference that I found which supplements the articles' sole reliance on the Chronicle's coverage of the audit.  I have found the auditor's own article, and think it would be a good source for readers to have it first hand.  It does not have the splashy headlines of the Chronicle's coverage and as such reads more neutrally.  read for yourself:  .  Secondly I would like to propose changing of a word attributed to the sociology Chair's statement which the article refers to as a "disavowal".  I don't know why that word was chosen, because the word nor it's common meaning is not used in the Chair's statement.  Looking at the definition of this word, it carries somewhat of a negative connotation.  It we're after precise and neutral language in this article, I would propose the word "disclaimer" which more accurately describes her statement.  Look at this reference for "disclaimer", which more accurately describes the Chair's actual words.  .  If you agree I would like to change the word "disavowal" to "disclaimer".  Would these changes be OK to include in the article?  Finally being new to the Wikipedia conventions I don't know how to message you about my proposal so I will leave a note on each of your talk pages.  Thank you for your time.24.92.249.215 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I have replaced your link to the article with a link to the article's page on the publisher's site, as the version you linked to at first glance appeared to be a copyright violation, and we have guidelines against making such links. The auditor's statement if referenced should be referenced as the auditor's statement, and not necessarily just as the truth, as he is not a third party in discussing the audit; that's a position that the Chronicle fills. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and @Roscelese you did not reply to the topics on the talk page and then reverted a topic without talking about it, asking me to talk about it on the talk page. You simply agreed with another user who didn't use the talk page, either. Under review is the same topic... what are your thoughts given the definition, not just whether you agree with a word. I've listed references above for your information, what UT did was a disclaimer and the word disavowal is used incorrectly, by definition.
 * Not sure what to say, except that I'm not persuaded by your argument. Disavowal seems exactly right to me -- the HoD made it clear that the department disassociated itself from Regnerus's work.  Disclaimer is not too far off, but disavowal is bang on target.  Disclaimer would work if it was Regnerus issuing the statement, making clear that he was speaking only for himself.  But when it's someone else, I think disavowal is better.    Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue using your opinion rather than the operational definition of the words. I've listed definitions and links to common usages, but you keep going back to "what seems right" to you.  Bang-on, indeed.  Look at ten examples of disclaimers, and then look at 10 examples of disavowals.  The UT chair used a disclaimer, not a disavowal.  You have your opinions which guide your perceptions and I have facts that guide mine.  When administrators look at this talk page, I'm sure I will prevail.   And still nothing from Roscelese, who more openly stated her deletion was based on her opinion of the word.   But it's kind of interesting how hard someone has to work to correct a misleading statement, or in this case a misleading word, when it doesn't adhere to the group think mentality.  A bit surprising that people here on a service concerned with accuracy, who purport to want openness and truth are so concerned with maintaining a false fact because it supports their emotional position.  Or perhaps not surprising given the subject matter.  More thoughts?  Continue our dialog or do you give up?  Cityside189 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am the mediator for this issue. Please continue this discussion on this page under the appropriate header. Dispute resolution noticeboard Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)


 * A disclaimer, is, in general, a statement issued in advance that a written document shall not be taken in certain ways, or that particular implications should not be drawn from it. The classic is the "disclaimer of warranties" in which a manufacturer or vendor says that the product does not have particular warranties, or that instructions or other documents shall not be taken to imply such warranties. Another classic disclaimer is a note that an article on a legal topic "does not constitute legal advice". Wikipedia's own General disclaimer is a version of this. Yet another version is the "don't try this in real life" disclaimer on some erotic writing. Yet another is the "All characters are products of the author's imagination, and none represents any real person"  language found on the copyright page of many novels, seeking to ward off libel suits. In all these cases, disclaimers are issued in advance, to avert particular claims, often legal claims, that might otherwise be made.


 * A disavowal, on the other hand, represents a backing away. It is normally done after the fact. It implies either that a speaker/writer has retracted views that that speaker once publicly held (avowed), or that a different entity wishes to publicly disassociate itself from the previously expressed views of the original speaker or writer. It does have a negative implication, because the person or entity issuing a disavowal is generally expressing a negative view of the statement begin disavowed.


 * It seems to me in this case that the statement issued by the Sociology Department Chair is a disavowal and not a disclaimer. Alternately, it could be said that "the Department repudiated the study", or that "the Department disassociated itself from the study." any of these wordings would IMO accurately express the nature of the statement dated April 12, 2014, but "disclaimer" would not. DES (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DES and Nomoskedasticity are right. A disclaimer is a different thing. We could substitute other words or phrases for "disavowal", but not "disclaimer" because it is not an accurate description of the Department's statement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the interest of those who have been following: at this point, both Cityside189 and Theeditorofallthingswikipedia have been blocked from editing. As there were no other forces pushing for the removal of "disavowal" at this point, I expect we will see status quo remain for a while. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I object to "disavowal". How about a neutral word like "notice"? What do WP:RS call the thing? Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggest from the now-closed discussion at WP:DRN, should there be consensus to remove "disavowal", was This includes Regnerus's department at the University of Texas-Austin issuing a statement that Regnerus's views "do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin" and that the American Sociological Association "takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families." (Note, I have shifted the statement from being made by the department chair to being made by the department, because that's what's marking this an "official statement" does; it's the opposite of the disclaimer, it is someone speaking in their official position to speak for the department.) I am also going to suggest that we link to this version of the statement, as it is dated earlier and thus better reflects when the statement was actually made, rather than it was reposted; I would've just made this change myself now; but I don't want normal editing to be mistaken for trying to address the core of this dispute in some way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)