Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Destinero (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 21 November 2010 (→‎Discussion on wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleSame-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article


Seriously?

Aside from its first sentence, the whole second paragraph of the lede should be broken up and moved down into the body, if not to child articles. This majorly WP:UNDUE paragraph really diminishes the article's credibility. K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it is UNDUE in it? --Destinero (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with something doesn't make it undue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the section on marriage privatisation

I'm concerned that marriage privatisation is being given undue weight. Libertarianism is primarily an American phenomenon, and thus this subject doesn't have much world-wide notability. Bob A (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly never heard this argument advanced by anyone but American Libertarian Party types. Upon a search, it has been mentioned by the Adam Smith Institute in the UK. However I think you are right that weight may be a serious issue here and it certainly demands question. The American LP does not enjoy much support outside of rather narrow circles and my guess is that marriage privatization would have been quite alien to the giants of classical liberal philosophy that the LP claims as its own. The same goes for the ASI. Plus we need to place American and British politics in a wider global context where privatization would often seemingly be an unknown concept. K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its relevancy rises to the level of the section it is in; it may make a subsection of Controversy, however. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Libertarian view is sort of irrelevant, in that it opposes marriage as anything more than a contract between the spouses. A contractual marriage of this sort offers no rights to a partner past what you can grant. In contrast, marriage as it exists today grants other rights, such as protection against deportation. In short, this is less an argument in favor of same-sex marriage and more an argument against marriage. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has any objections I am going to move this whole section somewhere else, possibly Same-sex marriage in the United States. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents

I believe 166.137.136.59 has a point: the court documents are a reliable second-party source reporting on scientific findings. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While as a general rule I'd say that that depends on the source of the documents (in many cases anyone can file an amicus brief, and I myself have filed one with a state supreme court), in this case the brief is authored by a group of large scientific bodies, each dominant in their field and in fields relevant to the subject matter. That certainly seems to me to qualify as a reliable source on the question of of science and fact. However, if there is controversy about whether this is a reliable enough source for the statement, I'd suggest taking it up not here on the talk page but bringing it to WP:RSN, where a greater body of editors experienced in the policies and practices around WP:RS will be able to contribute to building a consensus here. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to revert an edit by someone who disagreed but was unwilling to explain themselves here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I'm in agreement with your reasoning. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't forced to do anything; you chose to continue to edit war. As to the sources, court documents are treated as primary sources. Lastly, two editors is not consensus. Right now, you don't have it just because one other person agrees with you; so far two others disagree with you, but there may be more, so wait until others have had a chance to comment instead of edit warring. You do -not- have consensus.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a court document is a primary source regarding that case, but is a secondary source regarding the scientific research it summarizes. I'm sorry to have to say that you seem not to fully understand the issue here. I hope we can come to a consensus with you, but we already have one without you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, Daedalus, if you want to request that others not edit war, the first step is not to edit war yourself. Otherwise, it comes out sounding a lot like "don't you dare touch my version", as if you own the article. I recommend that you self-revert. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is there was already consensus for the previous version of the article, whereas you don't have consensus for your change; eg, the crux is that you don't get to have your way before consensus is achieved, only after, and only after it is in your favor, so, no, I will not be reverting to your preferred version, that you do not have consensus for.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)And I'll say it again; you do not have consensus for your edits. Another editor agreeing with your stance does not make a consensus, especially when there is equal opposition to such. As long as there is equal opposition, you cannot claim you have consensus.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, tossing 3RR violation warnings on my talk page is not conducive to the assumption of good faith, given that you're the one edit-warring against consensus, and that I let your mistaken reversion stand. Poor form, sport! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not edit warring against consensus, because no such consensus exists.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the question of whether it's a primary source, please actually read WP:PRIMARY, and recast your arguments in terms of policy. Primary sources are not automatically invalid. Thank you. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2)Please do not assume I haven't, and try assuming good faith, as well as not putting words in my mouth. I never said primary sources were invalid, I simply corrected you that the court documents were primary, not secondary sources.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm not sure what Daedalus' objection is. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daedalus969: Your edit summary, in conjunction with the reply here, appeared to me to indicate that "also, court documents are primary sources" was a reason to remove the statement. Do you believe that it is? If not, I apologize. If so, could you explain further, given that WP:PRIMARY specifically does allow primary sources in some circumstances? I'm honestly confused by what appears to be your argument, but I understand that I may be totally missing your point. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will write an in-depth reply to you in a moment, and it shall be below all of these replies, as it is probably getting difficult to follow this discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sincerely. I think that would be very helpful. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop ur POV additions. The existing page omitted the source because it is Scientific Fact. the whole paragraph almost rests on the same source so its absurd to single out a sentence not in agreement with your prejudice. u cannot just decide its an opinion. it was on the originsl page & it was only roentgen who tried to undermine the Facts. 166.137.136.59 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Please just stop claiming POV of others. As I said previously, there is equal opposition on both sides, so consensus cannot be claimed of either. Me, Daye, and Roen on one; you, Dylan, and Joe on another. Neither side can claim consensus while there is equal opposition. As to what you have said, 166, I am looking into it, unfortunately, wikiblame appears to be broken, so I'm going to have to search manually. If your claim is true, I'll self-revert.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. If you claim the source isn't reliable but can't seem to explain why, we have no reason to listen any further. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why you cannot claim that another agreeing with you is consensus; in other words, you cannot claim it without giving others a chance to comment, so how about you do that.. oh, and stop putting words in others' mouths.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not stop. In fact, I can't, since I never started. Instead, I've been trying to get you to state your reasoning, if any. So far, no luck. As far as I can tell, you just don't like that source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you will, because doing so is disruptive editing; just above, you say that I claim that a source is unreliable, when I have indeed said no such thing. So indeed, stop putting words in others' mouths.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this simple. Daedalus, in your own words, what is your objection to the version that I and other here have supported? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, in response to Joe, that I was going to make an in-depth reply(in this location) due to the text above getting hard to follow chronologically. That aside, let me begin;
First and foremost; it's the same source, with a slight different wording to diminish the amount of space required for its existence.
That aside, I feel that the change is slightly POV-ish, in that it sides with a single POV on the subject from a particular group, and argues it as undeniable fact. While it very well may be fact given its source; its method of creation, it wouldn't be right in this kind of article where there are opposing opinions on the matter. So, per Wikipedia's policy asking for a neutral point of view, the previous wording seems best, in that it does not treat the assertion as an absolute fact but as a finding of a specific group. Now, if we had several such groups coming to the same conclusion, I believe that would be a call for the wording to be as it was changed to.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daedalus, the report was a summary of scientific studies. As such, it already reflects more than the findings of a specific group (unless you mean "all social scientists"). It is already neutral, and it does not need to be specifically attributed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it treats one side as plain fact, no, it is not already neutral.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific opinion is plain fact. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I've given my own views in the comment below. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, Daedalus would like to retain the language that states where the opinion is coming from, and Dylan wants it to read as if it were a plain fact. Is that basically it? P.S. The page is protected from editing for the next week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding of the dispute. I tend to frame the dispute in terms of this Request for Arbitration. [1], which is I believe precedent on the conflicts between "point of view" and science. I'd say that one side feels that questions of science should reflect opposition to the scientific consensus only when there is "legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." Given the provenance of the brief, it's certainly a valid argument that it represents a clear statement of scientific consensus (to my mind, much as "gravity" is a scientific consensus), and that weakening the statement by an apparently limiting attribution indicates the existence of a putative but unstated and unsourced legitimate scientific disagreement. Perhaps we could split the difference with a statement such as "There is a scientific consensus that....", which weakens the objectionable (to me) limiting of the statement while making it clearer that the statement refers to harm as determined by science. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wouldn't object to that wording. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Should someone ask the admin to lift the protection? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, already done. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, now that we have a compromise and the article is unlocked, would you like to do the honors? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Wikipints all around, on me! --j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered whatever became of Joe Decker. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? I'm around, mostly just sourcing unref'd BLPs, 'cept when I'm off in Greenland or whatever. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Should have checked the link. I don't know what happened to that one, but I have his baseball card! --j⚛e deckertalk 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American amicus briefs

My opinion that I have expressed at least once before without reply is that citing amicus briefs by themselves is inherently inadequate to demonstrate scientific consensus. These briefs are constructed with the purpose of winning a single court case and can hardly be seen as objective regardless of provenance. In contrast, a source like say the IPCC assessment report on climate change is not "pitched" toward any one narrow legislative or judicial goal but is intended as an overall summary of current scientific knowledge. Plus, consider the process involved in creating an IPCC report. We know that someone named Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle from the APA helped write this amicus brief, as well as a couple of lawyers, but many more scientific eyes are typically run over other statements.

Also consider that the sources for these statements come only from the American Psychological Association. Outside of the West there may not even be recognition of "gay people" as a class and Western papers also acknowledge that the number of journal articles concerning non-Western cultures is woefully inadequate. Therefore it seems too great a stretch to claim that US or even US and Canadian statements constitute a global consensus, and we can again contrast the IPCC which represents a deliberately worldwide meeting of the minds on its respective issue.

I again request that all of the statements in the second paragraph sourced only by amicus briefs, and not just the one inciting the recent fracas, be moved down into the body and given proper qualification. K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, the brief reflects the views of the APA, which is to say, the scientific consensus. This is sufficient to qualify it as a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the APA, around a half-dozen organizations. While there are other science-based organizations qualified to judge the consensus, I am unaware of any others that have so clearly, one way or another, on this question. Their results are "in view of" a wide variety of globally-produced research. If I had a 6-0 result in AfD nobody would argue consensus, particularly if all six !votes were from very respected AfD-qualified organizations, and that analogy understates the reality of this particular statement. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K., I'm afraid that, short even one reliable source documenting the lack of, or a contrary scientific consensus, there's no basis that I see for me to support your change. Your "there may not be"s seem too hypothetical to me, but if you can point at science-based alternative statements of consensus, I'd be glad to listen. The APA and the half-dozen other organizations behind that brief are basing their opinions based on the global process of research, science done in other countries is not excluded from their view. Please see the request for arbitration link I provided in the section above. (It's [2]) --j⚛e deckertalk 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the consenting organizations as I was prompted to look at their resolutions on the subject. However, I still have issues here. Let's consider due weight. It seems much better to pull quotes not from a brief but from the original resolutions of the signers. The brief was written by Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle and a couple of lawyers while the resolutions were written by the APA Council of Representatives, the APA Assembly, and the AAMFT Board. So if we are really serious about all this being undisputed fact, then we have to state as fact that "It is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges." That's what the APA concluded in 2004.
I think this is reductio ad absurdum. It's clear that these statements are not just based on scientific facts but also on the values of the generally affluent and secular American professional organizations involved. Normative statements like saying that gay marriage should be legal are clearly not facts, and the AAMFT in particular is very open about its statement reflecting values. Other sectors of American society and especially non-Western societies may have quite different values. I think the current lead is unfair to these groups. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, briefs are written by lawyers, this is no surprise. The views expressed in this filings are however, related to the views of the people submitting the brief in ways that are enforced by legal prohibitions. It's fair, I believe, to assume that the organizations involved "sign on to" the brief, if they don't, they have a civil case and the court system has a criminal case.
Turning to what was actually written in the brief, it's not clear to me how the quote you pulled out is the best quote available from the organizations in relationship to the question being discussed, which is, as I see it, the question of harm to children being raised by same-sex couples by marriage bans. The brief provides specific examples justifying that conclusion by science. Page 22-23: "Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents", from an AAP study. They reinforce specific quotes from specific studies with attributions to other science, see footnotes 42, or better, 49, which states "The general impact of stigmatization on children has been well documented." and then notes by way of an example the Milch paper.
I entirely disagree with your characterization of the source, in specific, "these statements are not just based on scientific facts but also on the values of the generally affluent and secular American professional organizations involved." The brief seems based, as near as I can tell, on a review and broad understanding of the scientific literature. It, I grant, is possible that "the scientific literature" as a whole is biased in the way you describe. Your use of the word "secular" is in fact suggestive that might be (or might not be) part of your concern, as "secular" is generally used in correlation with "science", and in opposition to "religion". In any case, it doesn't matter! Whether or not "science is POV" is not our concern here, as WP policy supports the scientific viewpoint including legitimate scientific alternatives. It's not against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies to exclude non-scientific counters to scientific consensus, WP's policy as described unanimously by ArbCom demands that exclusion.
To the extent that the question of the reliability of the brief as a source for determination of scientific consensus is in disagreement, I'd once again suggest considering opening that question to the wider audience at WP:RSN.
To the extent that there is quite a bit of science being summarized and simplified, as is always necessary in such briefs, I believe that is best to use the organization's own summary of the research being quoted. Selecting details from specific parts of the argument, or things that are cited by citations, is dangerous, and violates the meaning of the warnings in WP:PRIMARY. As a result, I think it's clearest to go with the summary the organizations themselves provided, or make as clear a connection to it as possible. And that summary reads "Depriving Same-Sex Couples of the Ability to Marry Has Adverse Effects on Their Children.", which is wholly in line with the brief and the quotes from studies within the brief. That seems a summarization of science, but one based in science, and entirely valid, at least to me.
Rather than ad hominum arguments ("affluent and secular"), it would be more effective (at least in terms of convincing me to your view) to provide significant scientific opposition via WP:RS and present it. I do wish we had more sources here, but I actually believe this one is solid enough on policy grounds. Anyway, enough prattling on my part for the evening, I look forward to your reply. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I am not saying that the amicus statements should be moved because they are wrong but because there are more notable sources available. One of those is the original APA resolution on gay marriage made in 2004 that was reprinted in the brief. This was the first resolution the APA or I think any mainstream body of social scientists had made supporting gay marriage. It was approved by the Council of Representatives and is therefore much more notable than a single brief. Here is its first and foremost conclusion:
...the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges;
I'm afraid that I don't understand why you think that the main question is one of harm to children. In any case I don't think specific aspects of the debate should be the main criteria for notability. The APA resolution seems quite prominent although I have located some others that could compete with it, namely the Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association, the Member Resolution on Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment Regarding Marriage and some other reprints in the brief. Which of them should be in the lead is a reasonable question but in my view they are all superior to amicus briefs.
I continue to think it's regrettable that we are only using American and Western sources. Unfortunately I am monolingual. However, judging by the fact that advocates are relying only on resolutions by its gay and lesbian section and women's section, the main British Psychological Association has apparently not touched the issue, and the Australian Psychological Society apparently also made no resolution if we infer from this page. I will try to investigate this further if possible.
Finally there are some other issues that I now see after beginning to think about the actual amicus content. The second and third sentence of the second lead paragraph are simply not about gay marriage. Although they do come from a source about gay marriage, for a sentence to be in the lead of an article of this size it should include the article's subject. I am also concerned about mentioning the concept of "stigma" in the later sentences because in scientific usage this word may have different implications than in popular use. But more important than these issues is that other sources are just more notable than the brief. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sentence that we're arguing about (I think we're arguing the same citation, maybe I'm wrong?) reads "There is a scientific consensus that "the stigma created by states' differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts", and that "depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children". When you ask about why I focus on harm ("adverse events") you're right, there are two statements to work from here, but I'd claim that my response above really is related to the applicability of using the amicus brief to source the second half of that.
But if you're more concerned about the first half, then you're entirely right to call me on not putting more discussion to that point. That was an oversight on my part.
With regard to why I put more weight on the consolidated statement of six organizations in 2010, rather than one of those organizations in 2004, well, I think the combined statement speaks more strongly to how widespread the consensus is--six organizations vs. one. The greater recency is also a factor, the progress in the underlying research in the last few years has been substantial.)
I'm monolingual as well, I understand your regret about the English-only thing. With regard to the underlying science, most of the journal publications and such are going to be in English even when the research is done elsewhere because that is the common practice of scientific journals. To add to that, most of the "same-sex marriage" that is available to study right now is in Western nations. So I think some of this is likely unavoidable.
I haven't looked at the rest of the lede, but most of this discussion for me has been the applicability of what I'm seeing as footnote 8 to the particular sentence i've noted above, I haven't looked at the questions more widely. I will, but I wanted to be clear that so far I've entirely focused on that sentence. Sorry for any confusion on that point! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo boy. I thought we were discussing all the sentences cited by amicus briefs in the second paragraph. Here they are in red:

There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits and burdens conferred by civil marriage. Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential aspects. Lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[5] Financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions.[5][6][7] There is a scientific consensus that "the stigma created by states' differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts", and that "depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children."[8]

There are two briefs, one with four signers ([5]) and one with six ([8]). The APA has filed more than twenty briefs like the first one. My opinion is that the original resolutions by the APA Council of Representatives and the APsychiatricA Assembly are more notable than this single brief. Now, you might say the brief represents a consensus of many organizations, but I am not sure how meaningful that consensus is when the actual authors are listed as just one APA employee, Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, and three lawyers. We also already have three sentences from this single brief. I think we would better replace them with one sentence from the APA resolution, one from the APsychiatricA resolution, and maybe one from the AAMFT's or just leave it at two sentences. (The fourth signer, the CPA, is a state-level group.) In any case, the current second and third sentences are simply not about gay marriage and so they demand to be replaced.

Moving on to the other brief, we don't know how it was constructed and so it may well represent more of an integrated consensus than I assume the first brief does. But even so it probably wasn't approved directly by the assemblies of any organizations. I think that as a rule it is better to use these because of their extensive review process and lack of partisan input from lawyers. That aside, I have doubts about whether the word "stigma" means the same in general and scientific usages and so whether it should be used without qualification. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I'm sorry about that. I need to take a deep breath and look at all of your comments with fresh eyes, probably tomorrow. (It's evening my time.) My apologies for the confusion. More soon. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Though I would probably only bother looking at my last two statements in the thread (e.g. from the one starting "Joe"). —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"My opinion is that the original resolutions by the APA Council of Representatives and the APsychiatricA Assembly are more notable than this single brief. Now, you might say the brief represents a consensus of many organizations, but I am not sure how meaningful that consensus is when the actual authors are listed as just one APA employee, Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, and three lawyers." The brief is essentialy identical but updated to the older one: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf which clearly states "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." That means that all amici (including the American Psychiatric Association from the older brief) views are the same in such issues and statements for the court. Moreover according to the http://apaconvention.typepad.com/2010_apa_convention_blog/2010/08/apa-continues-its-legal-efforts-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage.html "APA’s Council of Representatives passed a measure reaffirming APA’s support for same-sex marriage, based on the scientific research. That action was followed by the Board of Directors’ voting to file amicus briefs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger" and it is obvious the amici curiae brief in the article has owerlhelming support among scientists (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/same-sex-marriage.aspx) and experts approved by the APA’s Council of Representatives (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/support-same-sex-marriage.aspx) followed by the Board of Directors’ voting to file amicus briefs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. As such it is much better to provide readers up-to-date consolidated source of scientific and expert positions like that than to reference every imaginable statement of any body without references of scientific literature which supports positions and everybody has the chance to verify them. Furthermore the amici brief put it clearly: " This brief cites scholarly works of several of the experts who testified before the district court, including Doctors Letitia Anne Peplau, Gregory Herek, and Michael Lamb. The testimony and research of those experts relied on by the district court accord with the rigorous scientific standards outlined above and reflect the scientific consensus." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf The court rulings put it clearly too: "Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified." https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf "According to the Howard court, of the eight expert witnesses testifying at trial, “[t]he most outstanding of the expert witnesses was Dr. Michael Lamb.” The trial court explained: Without a single note to refer to and without any hint of animus or bias, for or against any of the parties, Dr. Lamb succinctly provided full and complete responses to every single question put to him by all counsel and was very frank in responding to inquiries from the court. Of all of the trials in which the court has participated, whether as a member of the bench or of the bar, Dr. Lamb may have been the best example of what an expert witness is supposed to do in a trial, simply provide data to the trier of fact so that the trier of fact can make an informed, impartial decision. Like the district court in this case, and after review of similar evidence, the Howard court ultimately issued various factual findings supporting the conclusion that being raised by gay parents does not pose a detriment to children." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus44.pdf It is totally obvious that there could not be *any reasonable dispute* about the credentials of the experts on which contributions the current scientific thinking and the amicus rely: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf
The same is true for the second discussed amici brief. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this references. The only imaginable attack on them could came from the people against equal rights and possibilities backed by marginal unscientific propaganda sources or from people who don't understand how these briefs were prepared. If an editor aims for the IPCC-like report, then he should accept these briefs, since there is none better secondary source in terms of consolidation of up-to-date scientific and expert knowledge. --Destinero (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out this evidence. However, there are many ways to define the "best" source. Certainly the brief is more voluminous, provides more citations and is more current. However, the fact remains that not nearly as many people were involved with actually creating it. It was apparently prepared primarily by one psychologist and three lawyers if we are to believe the opening pages and then given a stamp of approval by others. Even with the second brief we can guess that there was nothing like a full approval by the board. I think this is significant because in writing a lead we are absolutely not concerned with questions of volume. We are concerned with the notability of the statements. To analogize, it is like we can access a ton of 14k gold and ten pounds of 24k gold and can only take away what we fit into a jewelry box. The ton is worth a lot more but unfortunately we can't fit it. We have a lot less 24k gold but it's purer and so we put that in the box. Same logic here. To continue with the analogy I am in no way trying to "attack" the value of the brief as a legitimate scientific source in the same way that taking the 24k does not impugn the 14k's value.
Also, there are apparently ten other briefs quite similar to this one, but there is only one main APA resolution on gay marriage and its importance was only reaffirmed by the 2010 resolution you point out that merely cites the 2004 one and does not elaborate. There is an APsychiatricA resolution as well but both can be included in the lead while we cannot possibly incorporate 11 different briefs. Finally I should qualify that I have absolutely no problem with listing the briefs as sources in the lead as long as the statements themselves are drawn from the resolutions. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation." The statement is from this year. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/rollofhonour/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian.aspx#recent --Destinero (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K, Destinero, etc.: Again, first, let me offer my apologies, I thought we were having a different argument than we were actually having, and it'll take time for me to make sure I"ve caught up. I had assumed this was a pile-on from the discussion which had seemed to conclude a few hours earlier in the previous section, and read things incorrectly as a result of that assumption. My sincere apologies.
I absolutely have no problem with including references to the original APA statement, etc. in general. I think they in one sense are stronger references in that it is easier to see how they are directly connected to what they claim than the amicus briefs, at least for statements where they say the same thing. I'm going to talk about the "part referenced by 5", then the "part referenced by 8".
For the parts referenced by [5], a first glance (and I'd be curious to know what you think, because I haven't reread it in detail), actually felt like it was mirrored better by the 2004 APA statement than by the amicus brief. I'd be okay with replacing the one with the other, or better (to my mind) including both. The RCP statement seems relevant to this section as well and could be added. I'm pretty comfortable with some combinations of any of these references, and would (as a matter of taste) tend to lean towards "more", but it's all good.
For the parts referenced by [8], however, that on that one point the six-party amicus brief there more clearly made it more clear that the lack of access to gov't benefits to parents had "adverse consequences" (e.g., harm). As a result, I like including the six-party brief as a reference, but I've no objection to adding the 2004 APA one here too, one has the benefit of being arguably closer to the science, the other has the benefit of more signers and six years of recency. In fact, my general preference here is "and." --j⚛e deckertalk 23:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite ok Joe. I have also changed my direction in response to looking at the original resolutions that you mentioned and so you are by no means alone.
I support replacing the part referenced by [5] with statements drawn from the original APA and APsychiatricA resolutions and have elaborated on my reasoning even more above in response to Destinero. The second and third sentences in red above certainly must be replaced because they aren't even about gay marriage. I would however certainly have no problem with using the [5] brief as a citation for new sentences.
Basically the same applies to the [8] brief. Now you say that you would like to include the brief as a citation and I have no problem with that although I prefer the actual statements to be drawn from the original resolutions of the signers (1, 2, 3). Of course with [8] it's harder because there are some signers that do not appear to have central resolutions and besides at six there are just too many of them. (I did find this from the AAP.) So maybe there is room for compromise and drawing some statement(s) from the brief here, especially as compromise seems called for with Destinero who just wants to use briefs. And I also like making use of the RCP statement but see my below comment. So anyway look at these citations. We will need to decide whether to keep the existing parts referenced by [8] or use the resolutions instead. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this reply, but I noticed your reworking of the paragraph and I have to say it seems neutral and well-sourced to me. I can see one place where I might have reworded a sentence differently using the briefs wording, but on reflection what you wrote is entirely logically equivalent to what I wanted to say, and that's more than good enough for me. Moreover, the paragraph feels just better written. Great work, thanks again for your patience with my confusion. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Destinero in locating this source, seriously. But it seemingly demonstrates a lack of international consensus as the RCP talks of a civil partnership and not same-sex marriage. Britain has civil unions but not SSM so perhaps this makes sense. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, agreed. -j⚛e deckertalk 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out to the fact the original resolutions of expert bodies are covered in the appdendix of the amici curiae brief: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf (the end of the document). Thus I see absolutely no sense to duplicate references where one amici brief could be used for everything related, since there is all, updated and nicely referenced to the specific scientific research. --Destinero (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be of interest to know that a discussion on this exact topic was also had at the LGBT parenting article and the conclusion was that amicus briefs were inherently less suitable than the original statements by the organizations. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of one editor there can't be called conclusion. The original statements by the organizations are part of the amicus briefs and thus I will reference the briefs in the article, since it is utterly nonsense to duplicate references when the amici brief does cover all. --Destinero (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-US sources may contradict lead

I may not be around much more to work on this article, but I'd like to note that the RCP statement found by Destinero only adds to my suspicions that non-US scientific sources might sharply differ with the scientific consensus mentioned in the lead. In fact the RCP statement does most definitely differ even if it may be too little evidence for major changes. I hope that others who are fluent in foreign languages or living outside North America can investigate further, possibly via sources unavailable online. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map is rather silly, please change it

In the "current status" sections there is a map and now, why there are two sections there? one titled "same sex sexual activity legal" and the other one "same sex sexual activity illegal"? its not really accurate cos many countries that are marked gray have no ban on sexual activity whatsoever and actually some of them has been the first to decriminalize same sex sexual activity while the others never had any bans in that matter!!please change that silly mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.198.105 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right...I changed it to "same-sex relationships legal" Gray means there is neither same-sex relationships or homosexuality is not illegal CTJF83 chat 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on wording

Title refactored due to violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; I have no such 'inability'.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Daedalus969's inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources I had to revert to what sources actually say: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=397932070&oldid=397894527

"It is beyond scientific dispute that the factors that account for the adjustment of children and adolescents are the quality of the youths’ relationships with their parents, the quality of the relationship between the parents or significant adults in the youths’ lives, and the availability of economic and socio-emotional resources. These factors affect adjustment in both traditional and nontraditional families. The parents’ sex or sexual orientation does not affect the capacity to be good parents or their children’s healthy development. 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 opposite-sex parents." http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption." http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf

"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." https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

"Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents." http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

The following Wikipedia fundamental policies is obviously mandatory here:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#A simple formulation: "Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none."

Wikipedia editors must not to be so much irrational to label facts supported by the multiple reliable sources about which there is no serious dispute as a POV. --Destinero (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I've refactored the title, as it was uncivil and attacked me directly, stating that I had an inability to read sources. BRD, as you so cite in your edit summary, does not mean slander the other party and insult them, it means take matters to the talk page, and do it in a civil manner.
Thanks for assuming bad faith, edit warring, and choosing to attack me in your 'opening statement', but let me clarify a few things for you first: I read the sources, don't insinuate otherwise; consensus is a term referring to general agreement that several parties hold over a matter, while conclusion refers to the end result of an experiment, study, or debate by one party. Thus, in this case, consensus is the correct term, as it reflects a broader view, instead of a narrow, singular conclusion. You may have forgotten another relevant policy in your reversion.. or it may be a guideline.. but it isn't the point what it is, what the point is is that we do not copy word-for-word of sources; we paraphrase, and especially since there are several different sources here, using the wording of one doesn't exactly fly.
Oh, and don't quote policy at me; I know it quite well enough.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is not up to you to change a fact sourced by multiple reliable expert bodies, since it become your original research: WP:ORIGINAL
2. It is not up to you to define the word conclusion, but up to the educated, experienced and recognized lexicographers with use of text corpus to carefully examine how is the word being used: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion?show=0&t=1290357257 http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0170240#m_en_gb0170240
3. If you are unable to come up with the reliable expert sources documenting the diputes over the conclusion of decades of research on parenting, don't change the conclusion to consensus and create the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none, which is prohibited by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#A simple formulation. In fact you are unable to do so.
4. I've explained broadly why it is strongly needed to refresh the fundamental Wikipedia policies to you, since you are obviously ignoring them. Thus, please, don't revert things you obviously do not understand enough. --Destinero (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community editing restriction of Destinero (talk · contribs)

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC) (originally posted by Nicholas Turnbull; cross-posted here by Ckatz)--Ckatzchatspy 23:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for feedback, or is this just an informational post? CTJF83 chat 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment relates to an editor in the preceding section in relation to the topic being discussed there. I've thus made this a subsection of that. DMacks (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes more sense...but are the above editors really arguing over one word?! CTJF83 chat 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Informational; this soft ban was put in place yesterday. --Ckatzchatspy 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post as a RS.

Ckatz, I took a look at both the article and the discussion about the reliability of that source, but my conclusions do not match yours. First, you were a bit selective in your quote from the discussion. It also contains the sentiment that "It is similar to other current affairs periodicals in containing a mix of opinion and straight reportage and so it should be used in a similar way, distinguishing the two". As it turns out, the article being referenced is very clearly straight reportage. Despite the topic itself being controversial, the article stays carefully neutral and reports just the facts. This makes it a reliable source, even if some other articles lean more towards opinion. I also searched for the author's name in Wikipedia and found that he's been referenced dozens of times. In short, I'm not sure why you feel that this citation should be removed. I look forward to your explanation. Dylan Flaherty 01:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that, although I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, the last time you deleted this link, you gave an entirely different reason, "rm spam links posted by single-purpose account", which wasn't actually correct. I think you need to be very careful when you do explain your objection, lest your credibility be damaged. Dylan Flaherty 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do assume good faith, as I am certainly doing the same with you. The comment is based on this edit by the single-purpose account Yermi888, who has been adding links to the HP. Note that the reference link we are discussing - and the related text - was added by a single-edit IP only three minutes prior to Yermi888's edit to the EL section. It is highly unlikely that the two represent separate individuals, so it is clearly a case of the same person attempting to add more spam links to the project. Furthermore, I did check out the article prior to removal, noting that it was not posted by a news organization, but instead by an "independent multimedia journalist" posting on his blog. Note that "Yermi888" is in all likelihood one-and-the-same with Yermi Brenner, the independent journalist in question, as all of the account's edits involve adding links to Mr. Brenner's articles. As such, my observations and actions were certainly not out of line, as we do not "reward" spammers who are trying to take advantage of the project. If you're prepared to stand behind it, so be it, but please don't be looking for hidden motivations where there are none. --Ckatzchatspy 01:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting on this further, I think it would be most interesting to review the "dozens of times" Mr. Brenner has been used as a reference on Wikipedia. While there may well be instances where they involve legitimate posting by an uninvolved editor, based on what I have seen I would not be surprised if many of the posts can be traced back to other single-purpose accounts. --Ckatzchatspy 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than getting entangled in whatever is going on between the two of you, I've decided to simply replace the citation with two others. I think it's more productive to find an unquestionably reliable source than to just remove what we have now or fight over it. Dylan Flaherty 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the IP who restored the Brenner reference is in Germany, whereas the HuffPost bio states that Brenner is based in Israel. It could still be him, but if so then he's either traveling or using some sort of proxy or something. Dylan Flaherty 02:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&oldid=398078850"