Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting

Where is the dispute?
Talk:LGBT parenting

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Tobit2
 * User:Destinero

What is the dispute?
There is a long history of unconstructive editing on the part of user: Destinero who often refuses to allow anyone to touch articles he edits. Most recently, he has installed a WARNING sign on Talk:LGBT parenting, in an attempt to justify his style of editing. It includes an FAQ with such questions as "why won't you add criticisms or objections to LGBT parenting in the LGBT parenting article?" His answer, is that it is against Wikipedia policy.

Problems with the new FAQ: 1) It attempts to institutionalize a POV. 2) It represents itself as the consensus of editors on the page. This is false. It was written by one person. 3) It states that LGBT parenting is a science article like "physics." This is untrue, LGBT parenting is a phenomenon that can be studied by science while having cultural implications and concerns.

What would you like to change about this?
Stop the LGBT parenting article from institutionalizing a POV.

How do you think we can help?
Modify or remove the FAQ from the Talk page. Allow reasonable people to disagree.

Discussion
I definitely decline to discuss effort to destroy owerhelmingly accepted scientific consensus beyond serious dispute based on more than 100 studies from all the world. Please educate yourself first, then discuss and edit this topic. The FAQ was created for the same need to prevent disputes over and over again just the same as in Evolution article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ): Just becase somebody has unfounded beliefs refused by all the scientific evidence which can stand fair court trial and where is none evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia policies do not permit you to describe the reality as there is some uncertainty or controversy about experts. The only bodies who scream there is a controvery is political and religious ones. And I will continue to defent fundamental Wikipedia policies prohibiting to promote propaganda of extremelly small minorities (WP:UNDUE) here since it is critically important to do that. --Destinero (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC) As David Boies put it: "In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that. That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost." Boies said. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/08/ftn/main6754443.shtml Also Canadian Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science." Thus, I absolutely refuse to accept discussion about Tobi2's junk science, prejudices and beliefs and call them expert or scientific controvery or uncertainty. He simply don't understand how the science works and how is the current state of research. On LGBT Parenting Talk Page he based most of his objections on a 2001 statement of one professor who has no expertise in the relevant field! Wake up! It's 2010. No 2000. --Destinero (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is Nicholas Turnbull, your mediator here at the Mediation Cabal. This is of course an extremely hot topic in the world at large, and it is of course the case that this will spill over to Wikipedia (it's inevitable). But, don't worry, we'll get this straightened out -- I promise.
 * Firstly I'd like to say that Destinero that there isn't any need for him to discuss any efforts to destroy any sort of consensus at all -- this is a mediation where we can sit down and work out what's wrong, and what we can do to fix it.
 * I would start off by saying that even though scientific consensus may well trend in favour of LGBT parenting, I don't think there is any doubt that in the world at large there is a definite difference of opinion amongst different points of view. Would you agree, Destinero, that there is indeed a dispute in the real world outside of Wikipedia on this -- irrespective of scientific opinion? The point here is of course that there is a dissenting view and as such Wikipedia must document it, as per Neutral point of view:
 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
 * I don't think there's much question that there is a significant view that exists in opposition to LGBT parenting. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be here in this mediation. It is overwhelmingly the case that there is such a significant view, and as such Wikipedia must document it.
 * However, and very importantly: The question is what claims that are made with reference to opposition of LGBT parenting are indeed a significant view in the sense of how WP:NPOV describes it. For this, we turn to Reliable sources where we can read in its very first paragraph:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * Above, Destiniro, you mentioned that you did indeed know this minority exists. Given media coverage on the subject of LGBT parenting and those opinions specified in this coverage, and wider discussion in other avenues, we've got to document this alternate point of view (or significant minority depending on opinion). The question is how we present it and what sources we use to present it. The questions we have to answer is as follows:
 * What constitutes the other POV? This must be obtained as a description from a reliable source (WP:RS) and written in a neutral way; as in, it presents the point of view espoused by the dissenting opinion in the manner specified by the source.
 * Key question: What do people think about talking about this and coming up with a starting list of sources, preferably including some very good ones which document both sides?
 * How does Wikipedia present this information? The answer is that it does not present "truth"; it does not present what is considered to be the "general opinion". It presents each significant opinion on its own terms to produce a balanced argument. I don't think there's much argument that there is indeed a counterargument to LGBT parenting, but we don't concern ourselves over whether it is "junk science" or not.
 * Key question: How can we present both points of view on the subject of LGBT parenting to present an accurate summary of the points of view, both for and against, in a neutral way?
 * I'd be really grateful for people's responses to this. Thanks so much for pitching in. Please respond below. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * :: WP:UNDUE part of WP:NPOV is pretty clear, is not it? " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on 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 or the general public. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources for something, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at Reference desk. Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." WP:GEVAL: "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims." WP:RS: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." Thus, the argument connected to the public view is absolutelly irrelevant here. Wikipedia have to stick to the most reliable sources available in the relevant field. This is the same principle why the Evolution article is in it's current state even though 43 % Americans thinks otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#United_States) as explained in Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Whereas there is no highly reliable source to describe the minority view, it is against the WIkipedia policies and guidelines to promote such claims. Even the recent Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial showed in undisputed evidence that "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. a. Tr 1025:4-23 (Lamb: Studies have demonstrated “very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” These results are “completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children’s adjustment.”); b. PX2565 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality at 5 (2008): “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents —— concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people —— are unfounded.”".


 * The Wikipedia should present the facts based on the best reliable sources available and frame the public opinion validity since the role of encyclopedia is to educate and provide reliable knowledge about issues. And in fact this is what is actually doing by stating "Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions are not supported by the scientific research literature.   In fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.  Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles. " in LGBT parenting --Destinero (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your reply, Destinero. With respect, I think you misunderstand the notion of "reliable sources", and what is meant by that term with respect to Wikipedia.
 * There are reliable sources that document the dispute, Destinero. We are talking about sources for use in writing the Wikipedia articles, not the reliability of the claims themselves (which would otherwise be WP:OR). I think this perhaps may be the source of your misunderstanding. Whether the original source of the claims themselves is reliable or not is immaterial: what we want, and need, is reliable sources discussing the dispute of opposition to LGBT parenting. There is no shortage of those, as I'm sure you'll agree.
 * I believe, also, that your interpretation of WP:UNDUE is somewhat at odds with the way the issue seen in the world at large and is quite at odds with the interpretation used by the Wikipedia community: I don't understand how you see that there is only an extremely small minority of people who are in opposition to LGBT parenting. It's certainly not an extremely small minority, as evidenced by a cursory search of Google, or reading any major historical text on the subject of the LGBT rights movement. On the contrary, it is quite a large group of opposition.
 * It seems to me that you're confusing the reliability of the original claims with the reliability of sources that discuss opposition of LGBT parenting. Can you see there is a distinction there -- that the reliability of the claims themselves is not the same as the reliability of the sources that discuss the claims? There are plenty of secondary sources that discuss both sides of the LGBT parenting dispute in a scholarly manner that are certainly reliable resources, and document them in a manner that is in congruence with WP:RS. Not only may these reliable sources be used for the article, but they must in order to adhere to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. What do you think about this? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The public oppinions should be framed as such. This is my point. I am not against to explain there are a public and policy disputes. Of course, they are. My point is there is none professional dispute about that and there is no reason why not to preserve the expert section of that in its current state. --Destinero (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicholas thank you for helping us reach consensus, and I agree that your approach of creating a list of sources to document the dispute. The article is currently focused on scientific claims, and in this area, few academics have publicly disagreed in peer-reviewed journals.  To explain the scope of the opposition, we may wish to broaden the article to include sources that document philosophical, religious, and legal concerns with LGBT parenting.  By their nature, such sources will be POV, because they reflect not the science of LGBT parenting, but rather societal issues.Tobit2 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "There are plenty of secondary sources that discuss both sides of the LGBT parenting dispute in a scholarly manner that are certainly reliable resources" Please show them ASAP. So far nobody was able to do that and I suspect you will be able to do that since the following are pretty much strong statements by highly credible sources and you will have hard times to conter them by the similar level of importance and reliability as NPOV requires.
 * "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. a. Tr 1025:4-23 (Lamb: Studies have demonstrated “very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.” These results are “completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children’s adjustment.”); b. PX2565 American Psychological Association, Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality at 5 (2008): “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents —— concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people —— are unfounded.”. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
 * "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." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
 * "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
 * "No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123248173/HTMLSTART
 * "Amici (The American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers), 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. Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. 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. Indeed, 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. 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. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
 * "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. There is no evidence in the psychological literature that gay and lesbian persons are less fit to parent than are heterosexual persons. There is no evidence in the psychological literature that the psychosocial and gender identity and development of children is compromised by the sexual orientation of their parents." http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf
 * "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. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.

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." http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf
 * "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science." Dr. Dan Summers, American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf
 * "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. The Australian Psychological Society (APS) is committed to contributing the knowledge of psychology in the public interest, and to fostering a social environment in which all children and their families experience support, recognition, and are valued, and in which discrimination and prejudice have no place." http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
 * "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” (cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36)." http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
 * IV. Research Specific To Same-Sex Parenting Demonstrates That The Children and Adolescents of Same-Sex Parents Are Just As Well-Adjusted As Those With Heterosexual Parents.
 * A. Based on a significant and well-respected body of research, the scientific community has reached consensus that parental sexual orientation does not affect adjustment.
 * 27. The body of research that has examined children’s and adolescents’ adjustment in the specific context of same-sex parenting represents approximately 30 years of scholarship and includes more than 50 peer-reviewed empirical reports. The earliest reports from studies of same-sex parenting were published in the late 1970's, and research has continued to the present. More than 100 articles about same-sex parents and/or their offspring have been published in respected academic journals or as chapters in books for use by other professionals. These present both qualitative research (relying primarily on interviews and discussions with either the youths or with the parents) and quantitative research.
 * 28. The results of these studies support and are consistent with the results of the broader body of research on socialization in both traditional and nontraditional families. They demonstrate that the adjustment of children and adolescents of same-sex parents is determined by the quality of the youths’ relationships with the parents, the quality of the relationship between the parents, and the resources available to the families.
 * 29. They further demonstrate that adjustment is not affected by the gender or sexual orientation of the parent(s). Research comparing the adjustment of children and adolescents of same-sex parents with the children and adolescents of heterosexual parents consistently shows that the children or adolescents in both groups are equivalently adjusted. The children and adolescents of same-sex parents are as emotionally healthy, and as educationally and socially successful, as children and adolescents raised by heterosexual parents. The social science literature overwhelmingly rejects the notion that there is an optimal gender mix of parents or that children and adolescents with same-sex parents suffer any developmental disadvantages compared with those with two oppositesex parents.
 * 30. There is consensus within the scientific community that parental sexual orientation has no effect on children’s and adolescents’ adjustment. Numerous organizations representing mental health and child welfare professionals have issued statements confirming that same-sex parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising well-adjusted children and adolescents and should not face discrimination. These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children.
 * 33. The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. When scholarly papers are submitted for publication, the research methods used, the analyses conducted, and the findings drawn are critically reviewed. In order to be published, an academic’s work must satisfy the scrutiny and standards of scholars considered to be experts in the field of research under review.
 * C. The methodology of the research examining same-sex parenting is standard, reliable, and accepted in the field.
 * 34. The studies specific to same-sex parenting from which I draw my conclusions were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, Developmental Psychology, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. The journals Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry are the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies on which I rely appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions." http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf --Destinero (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Destinero and Tobit.

Destinero: In reply to your talk page message, I'm not in the business of proving anything; I'm a mediator and not an editor of the LGBT parenting article. I appreciate your efforts to document your claims. However, once again, you are considering the sources on the basis of 'how reliable they are in terms of how they have arrived at their conclusions. Reliable source has a different definition of this. A "reliable source" is about how well the source documents the claims, not whether the claims themselves are reliable. . What you document above are papers describing research. When talking about the research itself, they are indeed reliable resources. But they are not as it were a means of presenting the entire topic simply because those sources are reliable and that scientific research is also reliable. This is otherwise Wikipedia presenting truth than Wikipedia presenting a neutral view on the topic.

Again I don't seem to be able to quite get you to see this point. There are also tertiary resources that document negative claims without they, themselves, be negative. Indeed there are some that have a pro-LGBT POV that nevertheless do document the controversy and are reliable resources in the context of WP:RS. An example is the following source which I own in hard-copy which does document the =dissenting claims made: This is a discussion of the dispute and whilst it is framed in a pro-LGBT POV, it discusses the dispute objectively from both sides. It is reasonable for the dissenting view to be described and reference based on such a secondary, reliable resource that talks about the controversies. This is my point: that not only do reliable resources of one point of view not "prove" the tone of the article, they also do not displace the other side of the dispute. One does not "counter" one claim with another. An alternate point of view does exist that needs to be documented in the article. A reliable source is not a reliable original source of the claim; it is a reliable source by which the claim may be documented. You are quite possibly right that a reliable original source of those claims framed in terms of science is not available but this is beside the point: there are plenty of unbiased books that document the overall controversy that are exactly what is required. I gave only one example above for the sake of argument. If you search on Google Books for any of these related search terms, or on Google Scholar, there are plenty of other sources. This isn't my job to research -- it's up to the article editors. We do have however one point of consensus already, and that is on the subject that the article should discuss the negative view from the perspective of society. Since the societal component that opposes LGBT parenting quotes this science, no matter how flawed it may or may not be or no matter as to whether there are examples of reliable research, since the claim is made and not only by a minority it must be documented. Can you not understand this point, Destinero? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Murphy, T. F. (1994). Gay ethics: controversies in outing, civil rights, and sexual science. ISBN 9781560230564.
 * A further point Destinero: Your implication regarding the burden of proof being on me is not really appropriate. I am not opposed to LGBT parenting. Far from it, as a very much "out" gay man who has worked in LGBT rights advocacy, and sat on a myriad of committees on the subject, I would be a hypocrite indeed. That however does not prevent the fact that my role is to advise as to how Wikipedia policy works remains and, indeed, that I work for the NPOV policy on Wikipedia in helping people to resolve disputes. I invite you to take a similar attitude. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain every time I am definitely not against to include society and political and religious and public views. But I have not those sources, I am not aware of much of them, I don't enjoy to search them. This is work for the editors who want to develop the article in those directions. I repeat it again: I am not against it but I don't want to do that (for now) and nobody can force me to do it just because he or she want. If there are contributors who want to develop the article so, fine. --Destinero (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
Some principles, (for Destinero but I would like comment from everyone):
 * "Reliable sources", in the sense that the term is used on Wikipedia, are reliable sources for obtaining information that a claim was made by someone; that the claim was made by a specific person can then be added, and referenced, in the article.
 * A reliable source does not mean that the ideas or concepts quoted within the source must be reliable. It refers only to how the source accurately states a particular point of view as having been made, and that it is published by reputable means.
 * Wikipedia is a tertiary resource. This means that it publishes what other people have written. It does not arbitrate truth. The reliability of sources reflects not the truth of their content, but the reliability of the source as a reporter of the claim (whatever that may be, and made by whoever made it). This means that reliable sources do not dictate a single "truth" of an article: they are used to build up an NPOV article from multiple points of view.
 * Sources do not "counter" one another on Wikipedia to decide the article content. Discussion of a particular significant POV, as mentioned above, is never and cannot be excluded from an article simply because the point of view expressed in a reliable source does not agree with that POV.
 * Most importantly: Points of view do not "win" over each other in the presentation of material on the basis of the reliability of the sources employed. All significant points of view must be included to produce a balanced article. In the case of LGBT parenting, there is a clear and unequivocal significant point of view that opposes the subject. Irrespective of the validity of its science, if that science (or "science", depending on opinion) is a part of the counterargument, it must be included in the article. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to get an explanation why my proposed phrasing "The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. " was not verifiable and prepared to be checked by the every reader for being published by reliable sources? As you said, whether it is true or whether editors think it is true is irrelavant here. The only relevant thing here is whether it can be checked. WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes either of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be simply stated in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet."), but remain subject to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and may require citation." What I wanted to include in the article was the same fact which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources and which should be asserted as Wikipedia policy demands. Nobody was able to provide a reliable source disputing that fact so far. --Destinero (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you see my point, please? I actually don't know of other we how I can present and discuss it. In my view, what I proposed was entirely in consistence with Wikipedia NPOV and other policies. --Destinero (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct, and most neutral, way of dealing with this is to add the origin of the source as a preamble to the claim, or do it as a quote rather than a direct statement. You say who said it, rather than presenting it unattributed. For example, say that Judge Walker said that the conclusion is accepted beyond reasonable doubt, which is the NPOV way of wording it (though the text could probably be better than mine -- use your imagination):
 * Research into the quality of LGBT parental relationships was briefly discussed in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a legal challenge to the prohibition of same-sex marriages in the State of California. Presiding judge Vaughan Walker, in his findings of fact for the case, considered that research showing the quality of parent-child relationships in LGBT parental units to be identical to those of heterosexual parents was accepted beyond serious debate in developmental psychology.
 * Please treat this as just as an example. It is not some sort of officially-approved way of wording it. :) But perhaps that example might make it clearer for you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bar for factual inclusion is significantly higher than would be entertained for a subject like LGBT parenting where there is obvious dispute. Whereas when it comes to statement like "Mars is a planet", there is no significant disagreement. I know that to you and from your point of view (and to mine, incidentally) it appears to be an unequivocal fact along the lines of this statement about Mars, this is not universally considered to be true. It isn't necessary for a source to be found expressing dissent in order for the quote to properly be attributed in the manner that I expressed above. If there is any kind of difference of opinion relating to the topic, it must be properly attributed and phrased in a reporting voice as in the example I've just given you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is different my proposed wording to Evolution:"Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes." (Can you see there is not even a reference for that factual statement?) whereas 43% of Americans think otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#United_States) and 99,99% of biologists support that factual statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends)? I proposed a factual statement where none of the developmental psychologists disagree with that. --Destinero (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. I can see how you might have the impression the two would be equivalent. Let me try to explain to you why they aren't. The notion that the research is accepted beyond reasonable debate in LGBT parenting is not universally agreed-upon in the same manner, even if scientific and judicial sources do agree on this interpretation. It is not a self-evident fact in the same way. The context of the article topic is also important, evolution and LGBT parenting being quite different matters with different kinds of investigative and polemic discussion. All that is being stated in the Evolution example above is that evolutionary biologists document the occurrence of evolution and perform testing of theories, and that much is not really a subject of debate. It doesn't actually speak directly to say that evolution as a fact is considered universal. Otherwise it would be worded like this:
 * "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs; this evidence is widely accepted, beyond reasonable debate. The theories and experimental tests to determine causes, which are accurate with respect to current scientific knowledge, are the current status quo within scientific research."
 * as opposed to
 * "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes." (the example you gave).
 * Can you see the difference between those two segments of text? Again this is perhaps something of a matter of nuances of English and its implications and I appreciate the ambiguity of this. I hope this example makes it clearer. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and note the difference between the meaning of the word "fact" in the sentence you gave. "... the fact that..." is idiomatic as meaning observing the occurrence of something; it is not actually saying that evolution is a fact. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand this much better now. Maybe the part of problem was a language barrier and nuances. Thank you very much! I think we can close this mediation with the result of removing FAQ for now and attributing my proposed statement directly rather than simply stating it. Also, I see no problem with developing article with public, political and religious views etc. as several editors suggested in the article talk page. I want to thank Tobit2 for bringing this mediation up. It has made a sense, after all! --Destinero (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed, Destinero and Tobit. Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Closed. :) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: November 2010
Due to repeated recurrence of the above-discussed behaviours on articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting, the following editing restriction has been enacted by community consensus.
 * is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also the community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)