Talk:Same-sex parenting/Archive 8

I am changing this page from a redirect into an actual article, because I don't think that 'same-sex parenting' has to necessarily equate to LGBT parenting. Reesorville (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a desire to delete the content of the article and change it back into a redirect, it needs to be discussed here. I think that the fact that there are other ways that same sex families existed besides the LGBT framework is enough reason to separate this from LGBT parenting. If there is a problem with the fact that in the modern mindset 'LGBT parenting' and 'same-sex parenting' are thought to mean the same thing, we could potentially solve that by simply changing the name of the article to something like 'Parenting/Guardianship by a single sex' or something of that nature and then changing 'same-sex parenting' into a disambiguation with two possible choices. Reesorville (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reesorville: - I assume you have some knowledge on this topic which precludes the need for you to verify anything in the article, I will let you source it before passing judgment on this again. My assumption was that the main bulk of the article is inaccurate, as at no point have I come across this usage, and the section about monks and the section about orphanages are both categorically not relevant to the term. However I am willing to let you prove there is some merit to this, as I may have missed something. Dysklyver 13:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you believe the part about orphanages or monks are categorically not relevant to the term? Which things do you need sources for?Reesorville (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The reasons you give for this article, that you don't think the term has to equate to LGBT parenting, are an excellent reason for doing an article on the topic.... somewhere besides Wikipedia. The lumping together of these disparate ways in which children may be reared, lacking some significant reference lumping them together, qualifies was original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

Additionally, the usurpation of this redirect has an impact on the various existing articles that had linked here, all of which are specifically dealing with the LGB-headed families; when we talk about Rick Santorum's vocal opposition to same-sex parenting, we're not talking about how he feels about kids being raised by monks or fictional children being raised by a set of (literal) fairies. That you feel that the term could refer to something else does not mean that it does refer to something else, and does not justify a disambiguation page for a term that, as commonly used, clearly points to a specific meaning.

This article should be moved to a draft within your user space for now, and the revert restored. Given that more than one user has reverted your bold move, you should not continue to try to edit-war your version into place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that there was the problem with the other articles linking to it. I think we could solve that issue by doing what I already suggested above by renaming this and then turning 'same-sex parenting' into a disambiguation with two possible choices. In terms of the issue surrounding original research, however, I would cite Wikipedia's definition of OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" Every detail and fact within what I wrote is found in reliable published sources, hence it is not OR according to Wikipedia. The reason why Wikipedia has a rule for OR, is because it is protecting pages from using evidence that cannot be verified... it is not there in order to stop someone from taking verifiable published facts and combining them logically. They are obviously not 'disparate facts' because they all have the same thing in common which is that people of a single sex raised children. Reesorville (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No a disambiguation page is not needed nor appropriate. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - given that LGBT parenting is not only the primary thing that people are referring to when they use the term but that it seems to be the topic that everyone but you is referring to, the redirect to LGBT parenting is the proper thing to have in this space.

And your claim that the OR rule "is not there in order to stop someone from taking verifiable published facts and combining them logically" falls down when one actually reads WP:OR, particularly the part marked WP:SYNTHESIS.

What name would you like the article in your draft space to have? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say something like User:Reesorville/Same-sex guardianship since this fabrication has little relevance to actual parents, mostly to non-parents who 'just happen' to be of the same gender and in a position of guardianship. I still don't see how these coincidental facts can be made into an actual article until there is some substantial academic work to connect them as a single subject. I could create an article on same sex government and source it way better than this. You are literally collecting unrelated facts, there is no source connecting them, and no source supporting the title, therefore it is OR. You are being very clever, but in this case I will point out the spirit of the 'guidelines' is more important than the letter, and you should not attempt to game the system by creating a dubious article on a established redirect to avoid it being new page patrolled. Dysklyver 15:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]