Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 3

Plagiarism Again
Destinero added the following text in the article: Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. Refer to discussion above in "No Relationship," section.

Sadly, this material has been lifted by, word for word, from one of the four sources Destinero cited as support for the sentence (bolded text below from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349): "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families." After notifying Destinero that this was another instance of plagiarism, I modified this sentence (while ensuring the new form was consistent with sources overall). Nevertheless, Destinero has re-inserted the plagiarized text. I have lost count of how many times Destinero has re-inserted plagiarized text after being warned. I reported Destinero once before and he was warned by admin. I will report this instance again. Plagiarism cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia.Tobit2 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A full response regarding the reported placed at ANEW is located here. Please feel free to return directly to my talk page in 24 hours should further edit-warring occur. All parties should remember that edit warring does not absolutely require 3 reverts in 24 hours but rather any continued reversion without discussion, without verification etc can be considered disruptive.  Again please feel free to return to my page if you need any further assistance.-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Plagarism: "some examples where attribution is generally not required: Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Editors who claim that the phrasing at issue is plagiarism must show that there is an alternative phrasing that does not make the passage more difficult to read. If a proposed rephrasing may impair the clarity, or flow, of a paragraph, they must propose a rephrasing that avoids such side-effects, possibly by rephrasing content preceding and following the disputed passage, or even the whole paragraph." Once again and loudly: One short sentence presenting facts followed by references is not plagiarism. And if somebody think so, he should be able to rephrase perfectly or suggest quotation. It would be more constructive approach than complain. --Destinero (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have posted this comment here and at the ANEW page - and you will note that your extended comment is my point exactly. That said, your simple reinsertion of the point when another editor complains is a point you are missing.  That type of editing and placing the comment in various articles in exactly the same way is inappropriate edit-warring! Please remember that point also.  Now please as is said above, and is repeated by other editors at your talk page try and find a resolution to this dispute without simply returning the content that you think should be inserted.-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 21:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I recommend exact quotations. Usually it is the best approach on many grounds. --Destinero (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Destinero, although you reverted the last attempt to re-write this sentence, we need to do something. I feel strongly that this is plagiarism.  You may not, but when two editors disagree, they should work together to create something new.  How about this: "Research has found no evidence of a relationship between the emotional, social, or behavioral adjustment of children and the sexual orientation of their parents."Tobit2 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no dissension, I will go ahead and make the change.Tobit2 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On August 30th, User Destinero, without discussing the issue here first, redacted the repaired plagriarism, replacing it with the following,
 * "Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and child's adjustment."sic
 * His editing has reinserted plagriaized text, lifting 10 words verbatim. Here is the original for comparison:
 * "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment.
 * User Destinero's re-insertion of verbatim text is unacceptable. It is especially troubling because the sentence in the article cites four sources although it is lifting material directly from only one source.  I no longer know how to deal with an editor who refuses to work together on the Talk Page yet feels justified to flagrantly violate guidelines.  I understand that English may not be Destinero's native language, but I am beyond sympathy.Tobit2 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lifting one part of one sentence is not plagiarism, and is not a good reason to rewrite in such a way that the meaning is changed. This sentence is quoted all over the place: why not just quote the whole sentence, like, for instance, the LA times does?  Mango juice talk 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a problem - a sort of Catch 22 some editors seem to use to keep certain material out of the encyclopedia. It runs like this.


 * The text is not close enough to the source cited... so, the text gets re-written to paraphrase the source.
 * The text plagiarises the source because it uses two phrases that contain four words each that are the same as in the source... so, the text gets re-written as a direct quote.
 * It is undue to have a series of quotes from source(s), and not all the sources cited say exactly same thing... so, the quote gets re-written to summarise the source.
 * The text is not close enough to the source cited... and off we go again.
 * if the editor who plays along with this game isn't careful, they will get reported for edit-warring, even though what they were trying to do was incorporate legitimate material in a way another edit could accept. Unfortunately, if the other editor is unable to accept some specific material full stop, he won't, and will effectively block its insertion through this tactic, and sully the reputation of the inserting editor in the process.  However, it is fairly obvious that the tactic is one that will inevitably result in an edit war, because the intention of inserting legitimate material in some way is persistently thwarted on technical grounds. Mish (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, but lifting a substantial part of any sentence is plagiarism and it is especially a concern when the text is lifted from one source but four sources are given credit. Iowa State (a notable authority on Writing) uses the criteria of 4 words lifted verbatim; personally it is what I go by although others may be somewhat more tolerant. Mish...your accusation is baseless. You have seen Destinero's repeated plagriaism on this article as well as I, and it has taken a great deal of work to correct it. Whether any of us have different interpretations of the facts is another matter aside from plagriarism.Tobit2 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not an accusation, it is pointing out the process. Perhaps the way I phrased that did not convey this as well as it could have.  I am not suggesting bad faith, my concern is not you, but the user you have facilitated moderation against, and I find that naming a demon can help diminish its power. Mish (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's test this out: Research over the last quarter century has found no relationship between a child's adjustment and the sexual orientation of their parents. How would that work?
 * Or, Research over the last quarter century has demonstrated no relationship between a child's adjustment and the sexual orientation of their parents....?
 * Both do an excellent job well of getting rid of the plagiarism. I prefer the second because I think it is open enough to interpretation that people of any ideology can read it and be satisfied it is any accurate statement.  Both are great improvements over my former attempts.Tobit2 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the source is saying something stronger. Not just that the research has not produced evidence of the link, but rather that the research has proved there is no link.  How about Research over the last quarter century has established that there is no relationship between a child's adjustment and the sexual orientation of their parents.  Mango juice talk 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with that, however, 'demonstrated' might be closer to 'documented' than 'established', perhaps 'shown' would be more acceptable?:
 * * Research over the last quarter century has shown that there is no relationship between a child's adjustment and the sexual orientation of their parents.
 * Although I would also add 'psycho-social' to cover emotional, behavioural and psychological adjustment, as in
 * * a child's psycho-social adjustment
 * "Psycho-social" is already implied and just makes the text more unwieldy, I'm against that. Frankly, "demonstrated," "established," "shown," "proved," are all reasonably close to each other but none has quite the same meaning as "documented," since all those other terms imply that the research had this as a thesis and had established that thesis as proven, whereas "documented" implies the research did not claim to prove the point but only documented specific findings, but this current comment is claiming that the overall effect of the research does prove the point.  When it comes down to it, I feel we ought to stick with "documented," and no, this one word will not make the difference between plagiarism and not plagiarism.  Mango juice talk 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Break 1
(outdent) My big concern is the plagriarism. So anything that repairs it suits me fine. That said, the exact wording should probably be based on all four sources, and I don't believe all four sources support the stronger version of the statement. Here are what all four sources say on the issue:

From CPA: "CPA continues to assert its 2003 position that the psychological literature into the psychosocial adjustment and functioning of children fails to demonstrate any significant differences between children raised within families with heterosexual parents and those raised within families with gay and lesbian parents."

From APS: "The studies conducted to date indicate that although there are usually no differences found between the children of lesbian women and the children of heterosexual women in most of the areas that have been investigated, some differences exist, and when they do, they usually favour children of lesbian women."

From AAP:Several studies comparing children who have a lesbian mother with children who have a heterosexual mother have failed to document any differences between such groups on personality measures, measures of peer-group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships...."

and from the AAP Commentary section, "More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment."

From Amici: "Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents...

"A comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific studies in this area reported no differences between children raised by lesbians and those raised by heterosexuals with respect to the factors that matter: self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, performance in social arenas (sports, school and friendships), use of psychological counseling, mothers’ and teachers’ reports of children’s hyperactivity, unsociability, emotional difficulty, or conduct difficulty...

"Research has shown that adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." The Amici points out this is from an APA position statement, not research conclusions.

So all sources support the idea "that there is no evidence of a relationship." The Amici and AAP sources support the stronger version, however, this comes from position statements. This is why, if we chose a sentence, I think the middle ground is best, a sentence using the word "demonstrate," for example; it defensible and accurate. That said, I think it is also perfectly defensible to use a strong version of the sentence and say this is based on the position statement of the APA and AAP. That is equally forthright and cannot be disputed.Tobit2 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (emphasis mine) APS: "The studies conducted to date indicate that although there are usually no differences found between the children of lesbian women and the children of heterosexual women in most of the areas that have been investigated, some differences exist, and when they do, they usually favour children of lesbian women." + "This review provides an overview and summary of the main bodies of research about parenting by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people" + "As detailed in this review, the family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families."
 * CPA: "the available scientific evidence indicates that children of gay and lesbian parents do not differ significantly from the children of heterosexual parents with regard to psychosocial and gender development and identity. Although the sexual orientation of their parents does not result in psychological impairment in children, the stigma and isolation these families experience as the result of public and systemic prejudice and discrimination, may in fact cause distress. Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents, or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised, have no basis in science. Our position is based on a review representing approximately 50 empirical studies and at least another 50 articles and book chapters and does not rest on the results of any one study. These articles appear in such journals as Developmental Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the American Psychologist, the Marriage and Family Review, the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, and the journals of Family Relations, Sex Roles, and Social Work. An annotated bibliography on the topic can be found on the website of the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html" (http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf) + "In 2003, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) issued its response to public debate about the effect of marriage of same-sex couples on children. CPA’s review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity. In 2005, the CPA voiced its support to the House of Commons of Bill C-38, legislation legalizing marriage of same-sex couples. The current federal government has committed to asking Parliament to re-examine the legalization of marriage of same-sex couples. In response to this intention, many individuals and groups, both in favour and against marriage of same-sex couples, have brought their opinions and positions to the public. Because public opinion continues to involve concern about the rights and needs of children, CPA has reviewed recent research and re-affirms its 2003 position and 2005 support of marriages of same-sex couples and their families." "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts." (http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf)
 * amici: "Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court. In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." "the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf)
 * "Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States by Gregory M. Herek This article is published in American Psychologist, the leading academic journal in the field of psychology. With a readership of 150,000+, papers published here have an enormous impact on the field. This article looks at the scientific evidence that pertains to the political debate over samesex relationship recognition. Herek is one of the leading scholars in the area of sexual orientation research: empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." (http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf)
 * The fact is that all main bodies agree on the fact that the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. We should either put several quotation of these highly credible sources (the more credible does not exist) or reformulate very very clearly to catch the meaning. Therefore the effort of promoting the weaker positions is unjustified and it serve as evidence POV of the Tobit2 and other editors. I've just documented that Tobit2 intentionally avoid to present the actual (stronger) facts presented by these organisations and he has tried to weak them. Moreover, the discrimination and stigmatization by the society is very important points to be mentioned, too. --Destinero (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were given a reprieve from your ban on the basis that you would discuss this. Discussion does not involve you insisting you get your own way.  It certainly does not involve you impugning the motives of those editors who have engaged in discussion here and gone to some lengths to reach a consensus.  What you have just written I find personally offensive, uncivil, and displaying a distinct lack of good faith and humility in that  more than one admin found your being banned was justified, and it was lifted solely because you agreed to discuss and not engage in any more edit warring.  When you apologise for your last comment, then I will be happy to discuss this with you. Mish (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am here to discuss things. I find personally offensive, uncivil, and displaying a distinct lack of good faith and humility when Tobit2 accuse me of plagiarism even though it is rather what the Mangojuicetalk pointed out: "Lifting one part of one sentence is not plagiarism, and is not a good reason to rewrite in such a way that the meaning is changed. This sentence is quoted all over the place: why not just quote the whole sentence, like, for instance, the LA times does? 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)". Thus, I am here to discuss things and I am not engaging in any more edit warring. It is right thing to point out the agenda and POV of Tobi2 when he repeatedly and clearly try to weak the positions od the main bodies. There is nothing wrong to write that. I have a right to point out that Tobit2 avoid something (strong positions of all these quoted bodies) which he surely should known about, simply because it is in the same documents which he used as a source to his quotes. --Destinero (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. You said Therefore the effort of promoting the weaker positions is unjustified and it serve as evidence POV of the Tobit2 and other editors.  If you have grounds for accusing Tobit2 of biased editing, then you need to take that to the administrators' noticeboard.  However, you have insulted every editor who has worked on this article when you accuse us other editors of editing for POV.  That shows a distinct lack of good faith on your part, and is uncivil because you assume this lack of good faith in the other editors.  Whatever I might think of Tobit2 and his edits, he seems to have had a point, because one admin blocked you, another sustained it, and only when you agreed to desist was an admin prepared to unblock you.  Are they all part of this conspiracy too?  So, you will not apologise to me or other editors that you have insulted, because in this as in all things you are the only one right and we are all wrong, and yet you expect us to extend good-faith to you when you begrudge it to us?  I went to some trouble to find a workable compromise with Tobit2 and others, and you simply dismiss it and demand your own way.  Destinero, I have gone some way to try and support you, but I can no longer do so - not because of my POV, but because of your attitude.  I am now removing this article from my watchlist - I have no children, and I never will have, and while I may identify as LGBT, this article is of no personal consequence to me. Mish (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when "(some) other editors" means "all other". It was meant such way. --Destinero (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Destinero, the text you copied from the APA or CPA seems very much like what I copied earlier; I cannot see how it supports the stronger position. Nevertheless, if ManjoJuice agrees with you, please by all means repair the plagiarism as the two of you see fit.  The plagiarism is my primary concern.  Like Mish, I can no longer work with you.  Once the plagiarism is repaired, I will exit this page as nothing good will come of this article.Tobit2 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to see the differences between "The Amici points out this is from an APA position statement, not research conclusions." + "fails to demonstrate any significant differences" and the fact that amici based their report on the review of cientific research and "CPA’s review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity. "CPA has reviewed recent research and re-affirms its 2003 position and 2005 support of marriages of same-sex couples and their families." "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts." then you proobably shoudl not contribute to this article simply for logical reasons. It is impossible to let you try to do as if there are some weaker positions in CPA and APS when there are not.
 * Like a dog returning to its vomit, I couldn't resist. Destinero, looking at your last two responses - one to me and one one to Tobit2, it has struck me that as English is not your first language, perhaps this explains why you are having such difficulty producing an unbiased, unplagiarised, accurate edit.  To counter your last point to Tobit2, perhaps if you fail to comprehend the subtle nuances of this language, you should not be editing this either.  FYI, 'other' means 'other', unless qualified by 'some', which you did not.  But, as usual, you cannot be wrong, only rights, and as expected, only an excuse rather than an apology.  It's OK, I understand, you are a man. Mish (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be aware of your language and tone. There are people who were not born in English speaking country and have to learn some world languages. You should not do something intentionally when other editor (me) clarified that he meant it another way. I am ready to apologise for not being able to write better what I meant. --Destinero (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your intent and capabilities are clear to all.Tobit2 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yours, too. --Destinero (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE. What is this argument even ABOUT anymore? -- King Öomie 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fostering = Parenting?
Misch, this is a pet peeve of mine. Frankly, ask most kids who went through the system, and I doubt they would call a "foster parent," their parent. Besides an adult licensed to provide foster care is not the legal parent nor even the appointed guardian of a child. The article really looks like it stretching on this one. Nevertheless, I support re-writing it to say something like, "LGBT people also provide parenting through the foster care system." That makes sense and is more accurate than saying "LGBT people are parents if they provide fostering." Tobit2 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have re-written to reflect this. I have also reorganised the citatations for that paragraph, as there were duplicates and some of them were in the wrong place. Mish (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Germany
An university study from Bavaria, Germany, which is published in August 2009, shows good results for LGBT parenting.
 * Zusammenfassung: Lebenssituation von Kindern in gleichgeschlechtlichen Lebenspartnerschaften (german), (pdf-document)
 * Echo-Online:„Gleiche Pflichten, gleiche Rechte“ (german) 92.252.84.40 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
An anonymous vandalist simply cannot promote fringe activists group such as Focus on Family and present as if there is some debate "about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father." when all most credible sources on the world on respective scientific and expert field this issue demonstrates consensus (agreement) of all credible experts. The repeated vandalism must stop immediately. --Destinero (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you have engaged in wholesale reverts of cited material without justification. I have been trying to assume good faith on your part, but your comments make it impossible to do so.  The fact that you do not like/disagree with the material that I included does not make my contributions vandalism, nor does it make the cited sources "fringe."  The only editor who is stepping over the line here is you.  Please desist.  Thank you.208.105.149.80 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible for your inability to read my edit summaries. All my changes and reverts was fully justified. Your contributions of fringe and political pressure groups (astroturf) simply cannot be added where expert and reputable bodies should by the side . Such your efforst is clearly vandalist ones as was been definitely prooved by editorial consenus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#ACP and Reliable sources noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#American_College_of_Pediatricians
 * While I wouldn't call Focus on the Family a fringe group, I can't condone painting them as experts on homosexuality so long as they reject 'without justification' the actual clinical definition of homosexuality. They've been demonizing gays for years. You might as well ask a KKK spokesman if he thinks blacks should be able to adopt. -- King Öomie 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the same case as on Czech Wikipedia. Destinero is removing all anti-gay materials from Wikipedia because of his personal thoughts and beliefs, instead of re-formulating the way the material is used. This breaks the NPOV rules. He was blocked here for this reason already. Actually, to be a black or white is not the same as to have homosexual behaviour, right? Do Wikipedians want here just a rainbow propaganda? IMHO that is, what Destinero is performing here.--DeeMusil (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are lying if you write that I removing all anti-gay materials, because there are plenty anti-gay text used in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Then you are lying if you write that I was banned due to edit war, because I was banned due to false reason as everybody can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#September_2009. And last but not least you are also lying that statements of the most credible, the most largest and the oldest mainstream psychological, psychiatric, sociological and child wellfare organizations which presents facts to the supreme courts in amici curiae briefs and leading scientific journals such as JAMA or Pediatrics are form of rainbow propaganda. Thus I am expecting your apopology and please stop doing your vandalist activities everyhere immediately! I consider them ridiculous and embarassing. My edits and reverts of ACP and Focus on Family are in full conformity with Wikipedia policies (NPOV - undue weight mainly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#ACP Please take your time to study Wikipedia policies carefully. This is not a henhouse. --Destinero (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This (what I did wrote before) can be easily proved looking on Czech version of Wikipedia homosexuality related articles and/or your edits. You are in edit wars, with few Users, articles are locked by Administrators because of this. Additionally, this discussion is actually about to remove such material (about Focus on the Family). Furthermore, here on en Wikipedia, you was blocked because you did removed part of the article without "consensus driven editing" which causes long queue of reverts on both sides, what could be called "edit war". If you did accuse me from lies, you should apologize. Read please No personal attacks. You did accuse me from vandalism here... I do not see any vandalism from my side in articles here, and list of my edits is available to everybody. You should apologise as well.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And about the article. I see you links to ACP RS/Noticeboard discussion (heh, same source as on Czech Wikipedia?), but I do not see any link to Focus on Family RS/Noticeboard discussion. Actually, Focus on Family is quite big international right wing group connected with Citizenlink with radios, magazines, etc. with contribution from its members $130Mio. in 2008 - and would be hard to remove them completely from the article. $130Milions (and hundreds of thousands of members worldwide) is not a typical amount for a "fringe" and you should pay attention. If they are in contradiction with mainstream scientific viewpoint, you can maybe put them aside of scientific explanation of LGBT parenting, but you should leave them in the article in part explaining moral or religious views of that. You may not like it, but this is the life. Otherwise it could be called a vandalism from your side.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how you can demand to pay attention and promote fringe political activist group which manipulates scientific facts (the similar way as you) where it should not belong (side by most respected and credible mainstream organizations)! "The group's message has been controversial. In particular, groups who support homosexual rights, including some educational, medical, and mental health organizations, have criticized the organization for its stance on homosexuality and related legislation and for its Love Won Out ministry, an ex-gay movement in cooperation with Exodus International and NARTH. Additionally, Focus on the Family has been charged with manipulating research to support their stance on homosexuality.   " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family There is no mention on CNN News Website or Associated Press website about Focus on Family, so stop demanding promoting these lying fringe idiots in violation with undue weight policy of Wikipedia immediately! NARHT, ACP or FoF ale all fringes political activist groups manipulating scientific agreement of all mainstream bodies and this is the primary reason why they are not mentioned even on Homosexuality article nor in others. They are not simply relevant and competent and they do not have encyclopedic value for the rearers to be included where broad scientific and professional agreement belongs. If you don't underestand Wikipedia policies, you should study them more. --Destinero (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Destinero, but your 1,2,3,4,5 links are going to NOWHERE, so therefore proofs again nothing. I thought you have a confirmation that FoF is/is not the reliable source to Homosexual issues in terms of moral or religious viewpoint. You have not such link, right?--DeeMusil (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Try now. Mish (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx Mish, Destinero should learn how to use hypertext properly - and this is not just copy-paste.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my problem when you are not able to click on the link where the quotation come from to find more (including what are you asking for). --Destinero (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break

 * Destinero, you did wrote, that FoF was charged(accused) of something. Yes, that's right, gay activist groups accused FoF, that they misinterpret some research results. To be concrete, they use wording of one scientist that "Child needs mother and father" and they did take it literally. Conclusion is - the scientist said, that there was nothing about sexual orientation (of the father and mother) in the study, protest against to be used as source, and finally, FoF is using another source to say the very same message. But this proves nothing. For example, you accused me from the vandalism here, but actually you did not prove it. For example research of pro-homosexual scientist Kinsey was charged/accused by anti-gay groups many times. And again, this proves nothing. So, once more: I did asked you, if you have some source, which proves, that FoF is or is not reliable source of moral or religious viewpoints in subject of LGBT parenting as in case of other source (American College of Pediatricians) and you did bring one particular case, which surely does not interpret all what FoF is doing. Seems to me that this is common strategy in LGBT activist groups to blame other opinions, so this again proves nothing. Destinero, prove your statement, that FoF is a fringe activist group, that is al what is necessary. My opinion is they are big enough to be not just a fringe of something.--DeeMusil (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is irrelevant here, since it is based on extreme political activist fringe ultraconservative groups. The evidence is here http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/0806exgay.pdf I've also stated that Focus on Family is a such marginal groups that is even not mentioned in AP or CNN press. It's simply unrealiable marginal extremist source misrepresenting scientific research with negative implications to the LGBT people: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf. This article deserves to be based on the highly reliable sources and you obviously cannot say that APA etc. are (political or religious) activist groups as your FoF, NARTH etc. favourites are. --Destinero (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this would be my opinion only, then it would be irrelevant. But always is good to ASK GOOGLE. Googletest confirms, that for Internet community is FoF even more frequent than APA. If you ignore this, I can call this propaganda. And about CNN and AP, i can belive, they are quite lieral, but what about Fox News? Actually, your claim, that FoF is not mentioned by CNN is LIE. Google says this-. Same with AP - Google says this. This proves, that FoF is mentioned by CNN and AP. If you depend on lies, Destinero, your arguments will be rubbish. Additionally, some more search engines: Wolfram knows FoF vs Wolfram does not know APA. This again shows relevant data that circulation of FoF monthly is 1.4 milion, so it is not a fringe thing and it has encyclopaedic relevance. But back into the matter. You did not have statement, that FoF is fringe. That's it. Note, that I do not say, that APA is not relevat. I agree with you that APA relevance is confirmed as professional organization with huge membership.--DeeMusil (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google searches don't say anything about competence to determine issues pertaining to psychology. FoF might be a valuable source for determining the opinions of a certain religious faction about the ethics of LGBT parenting, but gives us no information about the established facts that relate to the (psycho-social) wellbeing and adjustment of children or the (psycho-social) suitability of LGBT parents.  In that context, FoF has nothing to contribute.  The best that can be said about them is that despite this, they still think it's a bad thing for some non-evidential reason (that they don't like it, basically).  Pretty sure that it is already stated somewhere that religious groups don't like it for some reason.  That's not censorship, that is reporting accurately what relevant reliable sources have to say about this.  FoF may be a reliable source about what FoF's religious-based views are, but not on the suitability of LGBT parents or the wellbeing of their children, APA are - because they are an independent professional organisation, while FoF is sectarian religious pressure group.  One has knowledge, one has opinions, and Google searches like this don't come into it - you would be better searching Google Scholar. Mish (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT hasn't applied to religious leaders at any time in the last couple thousand years. -- King Öomie 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for putting in irrelevant sources about extreme groups just because they happen to have opinions that somebody wants included in an article. Who mentioned religious leaders? Mish (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about LGBT parenting - not a soapbox for opposition to LGBT people being parents. Mish (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an off-topic jab, actually. Carry on. -- King Öomie 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mish, you did wrote, that "Pretty sure that it is already stated somewhere that religious groups don't like it for some reason". I wish you are true, but you are not. Destinero deleted last paragraph, which somehow mentioned that. Looks like, contrary you expectations, article is unbalanced. // There is just some sentence without sources about some culture wars between conservatives and liberals... without any specification. PS: doubt about reason you specified.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, all, please tell me, if there is a source in the article as hrc.org, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization with only 750k supporters, because they like it... why there should not be FoF with 1400k of supporters because they dont like it... ?? Conclusion: unballanced, or hrc.org should be deleted. --DeeMusil (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the article is called 'LGBT parenting', not 'Views about LGBT parenting', nor a WP:SOAPbox for people who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Numbers don't really come into it.  Lots of people don't like lots of things - but you don't tend to see their views on the subject in articles.  For example, you don't have lots of stuff about groups opposed to Christianity in the Christianity article.  Sounds to me that religious groups are covered under social conservatives - but I guess that could be phrased 'religious and social conservatives', with a link to LGBT rights opposition, where all the anti-LGBT stuff tends to live. Mish (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, if the text will be tweaked a little and extended in this manner. Issue of this article is, that does not reflect any kind of opposition, and/or unexceptionally remarkable controversy of the subject - what means that article is unbalanced.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying Again
I see three major issues with this article. First, it needs cleanup to correct errors and to restore an encyclopedic tone. Second, it contains a wide array of repetitive and verbose block quotations that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, in addition to being nightmarishly unreadable. Third, the article does not include even one reference to any perspective on LGBT parenting that does not unequivocally favor LGBT parenting; this (to put it mildly) creates a POV problem.

I have previously tried to do my part to correct each of these issues. The result has been that literally every edit I've made has been reverted on a wholesale basis, regardless of what type of edit it was. Today, I have tried again. I have attempted to clean up the article. I have also attempted to trim many of the block quotations without removing any references or meaningfully changing the substance. I still believe that the quotations are too long, but they are now better than they were.

I believe it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of a minority perspective on LGBT parenting. I have some material that I'd like to propose on the talk page. However, I am going to wait on proposing to include any new material at all to see whether the non-controversial edits I've offered today will be treated fairly and appropriately by other editors. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with 208 above about the overuse of long quotations. There is nothing that cautions against the use of such quotes in MOSQUOTE, but I think it would read better if we cut the quoted material down and rephrased the findings in our own language. -- >David  Shankbone  19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then let's try to do that. I think it could be better, too, but none essencial facts should be removed as was the case with previous attempts. --Destinero (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just reduced that passage by 25 % since I remove duplicated statements and less important information. I believe you find it better. It is critically important to quote the issues such as connection between sexual orientation of parents and children's or positives outcomes despite the legal discrimination and not removed it since that place is perfectly appropriate to that. Where else should Wikipedia readers naturally find these informations? I'm convinced that present version could not be considered as quote farm. There were serious effort over past half year to imporove and develop the article, find all highly credible references and pick up the most essential quotes from documents of hundreds of pages. The purpose of this article and section is to provide current fundamental context and main scientific and profesional (= relevant) bodies all around the world, to cover that there is no controversies or disagreement on the results of scientific research in the last 25 years and so on. --Destinero (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoption weasel words in article
In the article, now in the part Countroversy is stated, that in the US is allowed to adopt a child except Florida. Actually is not complete truth. Look map of allowed adoptions in another article. There is right to make a petition, then the judge decides if yes or no. Additionally, there is used a source of extreme gay activist group, but there is no reason why, when FoF is not in the article as well. I propose to remove the sentence completely, just make a wikilink to adoptions in another part of article.--DeeMusil (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert of misinterpreting sources
I've reverted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&curid=7466395&diff=335478512&oldid=334056251

Explanation: "When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

--Destinero (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagreement with a cited source is not a legitimate basis for reversion of sourced material.

72.224.119.207 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in sources you added is "some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father." Thus you are presenting irrelevant sources for your claims and this is why your edits are reverted. 72.224.119.207, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV, which is pretty clear here: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear here, too: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Destinero: Sentence has been revised and additional references have been inserted.  There is no violation of any Wikipedia policy.  Please do not revert again; there is no justification.  Thank you.  Also, I do not understand why you have taken material that I wrote on your talk page and repeated it back to me on this page.72.224.119.207 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 72.224.119.207 I used your words since I feel it the same why. Why you could and I couldn't? Till you are able to prove where your claims presented into the article "children fare best when raised by their two birth parents in intact, married households." came from your edits is reverted because of WP:SYNTHESIS. You simply cannot write what the source don't explicitly say to this issue. Moreover your source do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Furthermore your source are claims of some 3 people which were not published in peer-rewied reliable source. Please stop immediately breaking the rules! --Destinero (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already have many highly-reliable sources in the article. http://www.americanexperiment.org/about/ is conservative think-tank, not neutral source for meta-analysis like amici curiae briefs, peer-reviewed and most cited pediatrical journal Academics and other established neutral psychological bodies from all the world. --Destinero (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nock
Ghostmonkey57 simply cannot add outdated (8 years old) source questioning the validity of some research up to the year 2000 immediately after many current highly credible and peer-reviewed sources published in last 5 years where you simply cannot find Nock accusations. Please clarify why you clearly try to misrepresent the whole issue! Please study Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) --Destinero (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Over the past three decades, more than two dozen such studies have been published (for reviews, see Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Fulcher, Sutfin, Chan, Scheib, & Patterson, 2006; Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). This body of research is more directly relevant to the marriage debate because it explicitly compares children according to the sexual orientation of their parents, but it is not without flaws. Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s often utilized small, select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures. Published reports did not always include adequate descriptions of research methodology. Sometimes key variables (e.g., whether or not an ostensibly single parent was in a cohabiting relationship) were not controlled. However, ''the overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples that were not originally recruited on the basis of sexual orientation (Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004), has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies (e.g., Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser, & Banks, 2005; MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship (e.g., by donor insemination) or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed.''" http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf (2005; peer-reviewed)

"This brief has been prepared and reviewed by expert members of the amici – the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists – who are thoroughly familiar with current scientific theory, research methods, empirical findings, and clinical techniques concerning sexual orientation, marriage and non-marital relationships, parenting, and stigma and prejudice. In the informed judgment of amici, this brief presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues. To further assist the Court, we briefly explain the professional standards we have followed for selecting individual studies and literature reviews for citation and for drawing conclusions from research data and theory. (1) We are ethically bound to be accurate and truthful in describing research findings and in characterizing the current state of scientific knowledge. (2) We rely on the best empirical research available, focusing on general patterns rather than any single study. Whenever possible, we cite original empirical studies and literature reviews that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable academic journals. Recognizing that academic journals differ widely in their publication criteria and the rigor of their peer review, we give the greatest credence to papers published in the most authoritative journals, and we critically evaluate the findings reported in all of the papers we cite. We cite chapters, academic books, and technical reports -- which typically are not subject to the same peer-review standards as journal articles -- when they report research employing rigorous methods, are authored by well-established researchers, and accurately reflect professional consensus about the current state of knowledge. In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions. (3) Before citing any study, we ''critically evaluate its methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests it employed, and the quality of its data-collection procedures and statistical analyses. We also evaluate the adequacy of the study’s sample, which must always be considered in terms of the specific research question posed by the study.3 In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations.''"

Whereas as noted by Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”; thus Nock accusations are invalid and irrelavant (less credible and undoubtedly outdated); this issue is thereby solved by removing Nock's paragraph. Reverting it back would be inherently unfair manipulation with the facts. --Destinero (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a debate on this, Destinero. You can't act like there is no debate.  Some sources will say the studies are good and others will say that it is bad.  Nock thinks one thing and Stacey thinks another.  I think, in general, one of the problems with education that we always assume there is only one right answer.  If you have a problem with the date, maybe we could qualify Nock's statement with a date. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nock's accusations are simply outdated nowadays, since he pointed out on research up to 2000. But all mainstream industry rely essentialy on valid research after 2000. --Destinero (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a more recent article, published by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists that says "According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family." This was published in May/June 2009 so it should resolve Destinero's concerns over how recent the research is. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The association didn’t evaluate the research presented within any of the articles, and while several of the pro articles appear to be drawn from academic journals and heavily researched using credible sources, members of CTME describe the con articles as flimsy, based on long-debunked data and reliant on studies conducted by religious institutions. “Frankly, I thought a couple of the [con] articles were lame,” Riemersma said. CTME argues that some of these dissenting views promote discrimination and homophobia against GLBTQ families." http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1123607 --Destinero (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Executive Director Mary Riemersma has now apologized for the publication of the "con" articles, and the entire issue of the magazine has been removed from their web site: "I am sorry that the objectionable articles appeared in the prior issue of The Therapist and that many found them offensive. I too found them distasteful and did not think they were credible. We were trying to create a balance of views and there was a paucity of articles submitted opposing marriage equality. If I had it to do over, we would have rejected the articles. Our ethics for the profession do not condone homophobia, I do not tolerate homophobia, and neither does the CAMFT Board. Let me know what we can do to overcome the unintended harm that some believe we have caused." http://mftprogress.blogspot.com/2009/07/camft-director-apologies-for-articles.html
 * Thus, Joshuajohanson should came up with something more serious than with lame, flimsy articles based on long-debunked data and reliant on studies conducted by religious institutions. Unreliable sources like those Wikipedia cannot be used where much more credible peer-reviewed sources from most internationally reputable academic journals and bodies (who prepare and reviewe presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues to supreme courts) are available and used. Wikipedia is not place for promoting extremistic dangerously views and editors should be aware of obligatory Wikipedia policies such as: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. 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." A vital component: good research Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. --Destinero (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The research that you are quoting includes meta-data that used the prior research that Nock Criticized. Further, Charlotte Patterson, whom you rely on extensively, was involved in a rather significant scandal involving her research. She refused to provide her research methods, even when directed to by a Florida Court, hence her research was stricken from the record. She has been accused of falsifying data. Nock's objections are not to same-sex parenting, rather he is pointing out the sample size problems and other methodological flaws in the research in this area. Those flaws WERE NOT corrected as you suggest in the research that you provided. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note that the consensus is not nearly as iron clad as Destinero is alleging. The President of The Texas Psychological Association (TPA) stated: "The research data on issues such as this are far from conclusive, and there certainly is not consensus in the professional community upon which we currently can make such sweeping recommendations for social change with confidence." Nock's criticisms are valid and rely solely on scientific criteria. The overwhelming majority of the research in this area was conducted prior to 2000. Most of the more modern studies are meta-analysis that rely on the older studies to come to their conclusions. I also note the use Stacey and Biblarz in the article, yet their primary study in this area (also a meta-analysis) was conducted in 2001. FURTHER the Patterson studies are automatically suspect given her notorious activism in this area and her prior sanctions. This area is not as cut & dry as some might want to pretend. In fact, this article is horribly slanted and gives only one side of this issue. I submit that we must try to be complete and accurate. That means that we don't cut out sources just because they don't advance an agenda that we might share. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply and clearly you don't understand the topic you try to contribute and that is why (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.html + http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/stacey_biblarz.pdf):
 * 4. We have been asked to evaluate the assertions contained in the affidavits of Professors Steven Nock and Craig Hart, filed in the within proceedings. Professor Nock’s affidavit criticizes the methodological adequacy and quality of the social science research on the effects of lesbian and gay parenting on children. Specifically, Professor Nock states that there is inadequate research to conclude whether or not there are any detrimental effects to children with same-sex parents. In this affidavit, we criticize and reject Professor Nock’s assertion that there is no scientifically valid evidence of equal outcomes between children with same-sex parents and children with heterosexual parents. He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. There is significant, reliable social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children fo same-sex coupels are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children, gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole. We also reject the assertions of Professor Craig Hart. His analysis is intellectually flawed and the studies cited are irrelevant to the issues in this case.


 * 5. Professor Nock’s affidavit makes two major claims, which we will address in turn. His first major claim is that the research on the parenting of lesbians and gay men does not meet requisite scientific standards. He rejects the entire body of research conducted on the question of comparing same-sex parents with heterosexual parents. This body of research represents approximately twenty-five years of scholarship and includes more than fifty peer reviewed studies. Nevertheless, Professor Nock claims that this research is incapable of evaluating the equivalence of parenting by same-sex parents to heterosexual parents or the question of whether same-sex parents cause greater risks to their children. He says that every single study is, in his words, “fatally flawed,” and that “not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research” (at paragraph 119).


 * 6. Specifically, Professor Nock asserts that this body of research is flawed because none of the studies that he reviewed (sometimes “the Vermont studies”) use a national probability sample; all use convenience samples that are too small to enable researchers to establish differences statistically between the groups. He complains also that the samples are unrepresentative and findings cannot be generalized to compare same-sex versus different-sex parents. Professor Nock asserts furthermore that the studies fail to develop adequate operational definitions of homosexuality. As a result, there is no sense of the base population, and inferential statistics cannot be used to make generalizations that compare the two groups of parents or their children.


 * 8. Professor Nock’s claims regarding generally accepted standards and methods for social science research are inaccurate and biased. Social scientists do not employ or accept exclusively one research method. Instead, social scientists employ and value diverse methodologies, research designs, and types of data which vary depending upon the discipline involved, the research area of specialty and investigation, the questions being raised and the theories that are being applied and evaluated.


 * 9. Professor Nock is a survey researcher and demographer, which represents a specific methodology and a sub-field of inquiry within sociological research. When Professor Nock provides his lengthy description of research methodology, he adopts the extreme, untenable position that the genre of large-scale survey research that he generally conducts is the only acceptable research method in all of the social science disciplines and subfields.


 * 10. Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise. The body of research with which he takes issue in his affidavit was conducted primarily, if not exclusively, by psychologists with expertise in the field of child development. None of the studies that Professor Nock is evaluating were conducted by sociologists or by demographers.


 * 11. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences, like all research in the academy, are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. Research methods, analyses, and findings are reviewed and scrutinized by a scholar’s peers when scholarly papers are submitted for publication. Characteristically, an academic’s work must satisfy the scrutiny and standards of scholars considered to be experts in the field and in the model of research under review.


 * 12. The journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology are the two flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. The former is published by the 5,000-member academic Society for Research in Child Development, and the latter is published by the American Psychological Association. Several of the Vermont studies appeared in these rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective periodicals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child development.


 * 13. The research methods that Professor Nock advocates, that is, research based on statistically representative national samples, are rarely employed by scholars who publish in Child Development and Developmental Psychology. There is a simple explanation for this. Large-scale survey research methods are too blunt and rigid to adequately address the complex and nuanced questions that are generally at issue when scholars attempt to assess and compare child development under different forms of parenting or adult intervention. Most child development studies profit from having in-depth observations of children with multiple reporters (parents, teachers, clinicians, researchers, etc.) and instruments. Research often benefits when rapport develops between the researcher, the observer, the parents and the children. This is precisely the opposite methodology from the method Professor Nock advocates: he prefers a “fly on the wall” ideal involving a neutral observer conducting abstract survey research.


 * 14. If the court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology. The vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would be invalidated as unscientific. The research design of the studies on lesbian and gay parenting that Professor Nock criticizes is by no means peculiar to or below the generally accepted scientific standards of the field. On the contrary, most of the research designs used in these studies characterize predominant methods employed throughout the entire discipline of psychology. In essence, Professor Nock appears to be claiming that psychologists would have to become demographers in order for their work to have scientific value.


 * 15. By that standard, almost every study published in the premier journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology would be rejected out of hand. Take, for example, the Nov-Dec 2000 issue of Child Development, in which at least 10 of the 15 empirical studies published employ one or another of the methodological features that Nock rejects as “fatal flaws.” Seven or more of 10 empirical studies in the November 2000 issue of the APA journal Developmental Psychology likewise would end up in Professor Nock’s dustbin. Smentana’s (2000) research on the attitudes of African American adolescents, Martin and Fabes’s (2000) research on children’s choices of playmates and gender development, Taylor et al’s (2000) study of outcomes in children with low birth weight, Kilgore, Snyder and Lentz’s (2000) investigation of the effects of parenting practices on children’s conduct - all of these studies and many more would be deemed unworthy of Professor Nock’s seal of “good science.” On the other hand, they were all deemed scientifically worthy enough to be accepted for publication by the external reviewers and the highly-regarded editors of the most exclusive and tightly-peer reviewed social science journals in their field.


 * 16. Professor Nock has confused two research goals: 1) to paint a statistical portrait of a population; and 2) to isolate the unique effect of a particular variable on an outcome. Professor Nock is arguing inappropriately that rules guiding the first goal are the same as those for - or must be applied to - the second goal. While the samples of, most often, lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers used in the Vermont studies are always drawn from their larger populations, they are not always drawn randomly. Nock argues that this means that we cannot be sure that the samples represent an accurate picture of their larger populations. While this makes achieving the first goal - painting a statistical portrait of a population - more difficult, it does not by definition preclude researchers’ ability to achieve the second goal - that of determining whether parental sexual orientation per se has any unique or problematic effects on child development. By matching lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers on a wide variety of variables including age, race, family structure, age of children, socioeconomic position, donor insemination, and so on, researchers ensure that whatever differences may exist between their samples and the larger population are the same for both groups of mothers. Hence, tests for whether differences by maternal sexual orientation are statistically significant are appropriate and valid. These tests uniformly show that a lesbian sexual orientation per se has no negative effect on parenting, nor on children’s healthy psychological development and social adjustment.


 * 17. By Professor Nock's standard, we would throw out a good portion of research in medicine that uses inferential statistics (e.g., all of those that conduct t-tests or chi-square tests for treatment effects on small non-probability samples). We would also have to reject the preponderance of research in psychology, psychiatry, social-psychology, anthropology, clinical research, and so on. In fact, some of Professor Nock’s own published research fails to meet his unreasonably narrow methodological standards. For example, Willets-Bloom and Nock’s (1992, 1994) response rate of 49% is well below the 60% rate that Professor Nock says in his Affidavit (para. 83) is the minimum standard for scientific acceptability, and the Willets-Bloom and Nock papers make claims about young people in general based on a very small - by Professor Nock’s standards - sample of 111 male and 131 female undergraduate students at a single university in Virginia - one of the United States’s smallest and most suburban states. To argue that good research is only that which draws large probability samples from larger populations is an unreasonable, extreme position that exhibits also a certain misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the statistical issues.


 * 68. Research in the most rigorously peer-reviewed journals in child development and sociology provide generally accepted social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. Likewise these studies find that children of same sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. Research even provides some suggestive evidence that there may be certain hidden advantages that lesbian parents and their children seem to enjoy. There is neither theory nor evidence that leads in the opposite direction.


 * 69. Therefore, it seems surprising, if not disingenuous, that Professor Nock, who elsewhere emphasizes the benefits of marriage to parents, their children and society, is unwilling to anticipate that the same benefits, or least some of the same benefits, and perhaps additional benefits, would apply to same-sex marriages and their progeny.


 * 70. Finally we would underscore that the issue before the court concerns the impact of marriage on lesbian and gay parenting. Lesbian and gay people have parented for a long time and will continue to do so. The question is under what conditions. Is it preferable for them to parent under conditions of invisibility, conditions of discrimination, or conditions of equality? It is difficult to imagine how anyone could argue in good faith that it is preferable to parent without access to equal recognition, social and legal resources, and benefits that other parents and their children enjoy.


 * Thereby I ask you for the last time to stop violating undue weight and using most reliable sources available which are fundamental Wikipedia principles and policies otherwise I report your behavior to the administrator or choose other legitimate ways to settle this inappropriate manipulation and misinterpretation of the facts in the article. --Destinero (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because Stacey and Biblarz disagree with Nock does not make them right. And don't you threaten me or question my motives. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise." Nock is not competent expert to have encyclopaedic space on this issue. Thus, resolved. --Destinero (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You asserting otherwise does not make it correct. Nock was an expert in sociology and an expert in the field of marriage. He correctly pointed out methodological flaws in the studies. That's science. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with his conclusions or not. He pointed out valid concerns. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nock was expert in demography and it is unacceptable to give him encyclopaedic space to comment entirelly differenct discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock did not have any expertise. Thus it's stupid to promote invalid concerns. --Destinero (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)