{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | LGBT studies B‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Sociology Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
|
vandalism
An anonymous vandalist simply cannot promote fringe activists group such as Focus on Family and present as if there is some debate "about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father." when all most credible sources on the world on respective scientific and expert field this issue demonstrates consensus (agreement) of all credible experts. The repeated vandalism must stop immediately. --Destinero (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is the third time you have engaged in wholesale reverts of cited material without justification. I have been trying to assume good faith on your part, but your comments make it impossible to do so. The fact that you do not like/disagree with the material that I included does not make my contributions vandalism, nor does it make the cited sources "fringe." The only editor who is stepping over the line here is you. Please desist. Thank you.208.105.149.80 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not responsible for your inability to read my edit summaries. All my changes and reverts was fully justified. Your contributions of fringe and political pressure groups (astroturf) simply cannot be added where expert and reputable bodies should by the side . Such your efforst is clearly vandalist ones as was been definitely prooved by editorial consenus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#ACP and Reliable sources noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#American_College_of_Pediatricians
- While I wouldn't call Focus on the Family a fringe group, I can't condone painting them as experts on homosexuality so long as they reject 'without justification' the actual clinical definition of homosexuality. They've been demonizing gays for years. You might as well ask a KKK spokesman if he thinks blacks should be able to adopt. --King Öomie 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is the same case as on Czech Wikipedia. Destinero is removing all anti-gay materials from Wikipedia because of his personal thoughts and beliefs, instead of re-formulating the way the material is used. This breaks the NPOV rules. He was blocked here for this reason already. Actually, to be a black or white is not the same as to have homosexual behaviour, right? Do Wikipedians want here just a rainbow propaganda? IMHO that is, what Destinero is performing here.--DeeMusil (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are lying if you write that I removing all anti-gay materials, because there are plenty anti-gay text used in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Then you are lying if you write that I was banned due to edit war, because I was banned due to false reason as everybody can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#September_2009. And last but not least you are also lying that statements of the most credible, the most largest and the oldest mainstream psychological, psychiatric, sociological and child wellfare organizations which presents facts to the supreme courts in amici curiae briefs and leading scientific journals such as JAMA or Pediatrics are form of rainbow propaganda. Thus I am expecting your apopology and please stop doing your vandalist activities everyhere immediately! I consider them ridiculous and embarassing. My edits and reverts of ACP and Focus on Family are in full conformity with Wikipedia policies (NPOV - undue weight mainly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#ACP Please take your time to study Wikipedia policies carefully. This is not a henhouse. --Destinero (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- This (what I did wrote before) can be easily proved looking on Czech version of Wikipedia homosexuality related articles and/or your edits. You are in edit wars, with few Users, articles are locked by Administrators because of this. Additionally, this discussion is actually about to remove such material (about Focus on the Family). Furthermore, here on en Wikipedia, you was blocked because you did removed part of the article without "consensus driven editing" which causes long queue of reverts on both sides, what could be called "edit war". If you did accuse me from lies, you should apologize. Read please Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You did accuse me from vandalism here... I do not see any vandalism from my side in articles here, and list of my edits is available to everybody. You should apologise as well.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- And about the article. I see you links to ACP RS/Noticeboard discussion (heh, same source as on Czech Wikipedia?), but I do not see any link to Focus on Family RS/Noticeboard discussion. Actually, Focus on Family is quite big international right wing group connected with Citizenlink with radios, magazines, etc. with contribution from its members $130Mio. in 2008 - and would be hard to remove them completely from the article. $130Milions (and hundreds of thousands of members worldwide) is not a typical amount for a "fringe" and you should pay attention. If they are in contradiction with mainstream scientific viewpoint, you can maybe put them aside of scientific explanation of LGBT parenting, but you should leave them in the article in part explaining moral or religious views of that. You may not like it, but this is the life. Otherwise it could be called a vandalism from your side.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how you can demand to pay attention and promote fringe political activist group which manipulates scientific facts (the similar way as you) where it should not belong (side by most respected and credible mainstream organizations)! "The group's message has been controversial. In particular, groups who support homosexual rights, including some educational, medical, and mental health organizations, have criticized the organization for its stance on homosexuality and related legislation and for its Love Won Out ministry, an ex-gay movement in cooperation with Exodus International and NARTH.[1] Additionally, Focus on the Family has been charged with manipulating research to support their stance on homosexuality.[2][3][4][5][6][7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family There is no mention on CNN News Website or Associated Press website about Focus on Family, so stop demanding promoting these lying fringe idiots in violation with undue weight policy of Wikipedia immediately! NARHT, ACP or FoF ale all fringes political activist groups manipulating scientific agreement of all mainstream bodies and this is the primary reason why they are not mentioned even on Homosexuality article nor in others. They are not simply relevant and competent and they do not have encyclopedic value for the rearers to be included where broad scientific and professional agreement belongs. If you don't underestand Wikipedia policies, you should study them more. --Destinero (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Destinero, but your 1,2,3,4,5 links are going to NOWHERE, so therefore proofs again nothing. I thought you have a confirmation that FoF is/is not the reliable source to Homosexual issues in terms of moral or religious viewpoint. You have not such link, right?--DeeMusil (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how you can demand to pay attention and promote fringe political activist group which manipulates scientific facts (the similar way as you) where it should not belong (side by most respected and credible mainstream organizations)! "The group's message has been controversial. In particular, groups who support homosexual rights, including some educational, medical, and mental health organizations, have criticized the organization for its stance on homosexuality and related legislation and for its Love Won Out ministry, an ex-gay movement in cooperation with Exodus International and NARTH.[1] Additionally, Focus on the Family has been charged with manipulating research to support their stance on homosexuality.[2][3][4][5][6][7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family There is no mention on CNN News Website or Associated Press website about Focus on Family, so stop demanding promoting these lying fringe idiots in violation with undue weight policy of Wikipedia immediately! NARHT, ACP or FoF ale all fringes political activist groups manipulating scientific agreement of all mainstream bodies and this is the primary reason why they are not mentioned even on Homosexuality article nor in others. They are not simply relevant and competent and they do not have encyclopedic value for the rearers to be included where broad scientific and professional agreement belongs. If you don't underestand Wikipedia policies, you should study them more. --Destinero (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are lying if you write that I removing all anti-gay materials, because there are plenty anti-gay text used in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Then you are lying if you write that I was banned due to edit war, because I was banned due to false reason as everybody can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#September_2009. And last but not least you are also lying that statements of the most credible, the most largest and the oldest mainstream psychological, psychiatric, sociological and child wellfare organizations which presents facts to the supreme courts in amici curiae briefs and leading scientific journals such as JAMA or Pediatrics are form of rainbow propaganda. Thus I am expecting your apopology and please stop doing your vandalist activities everyhere immediately! I consider them ridiculous and embarassing. My edits and reverts of ACP and Focus on Family are in full conformity with Wikipedia policies (NPOV - undue weight mainly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#ACP Please take your time to study Wikipedia policies carefully. This is not a henhouse. --Destinero (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is the same case as on Czech Wikipedia. Destinero is removing all anti-gay materials from Wikipedia because of his personal thoughts and beliefs, instead of re-formulating the way the material is used. This breaks the NPOV rules. He was blocked here for this reason already. Actually, to be a black or white is not the same as to have homosexual behaviour, right? Do Wikipedians want here just a rainbow propaganda? IMHO that is, what Destinero is performing here.--DeeMusil (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Try now. Mish (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- ^ SPLCenter.org: Straight Like Me
- ^ http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html American Psychological Association: Just the Facts About - Sexual Orientation & Youth "was developed and is endorsed by the following organizations:American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and the National Education Association"
- ^ http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)
- ^ Paulson, Steven K. (2006-08-17). "Gay Rights Group: Dobson Manipulated Data". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-05-21.
- ^ Scientists fume after Focus on the Family chief Dobson 'misrepresents' work on gays Raw Story, December 15 2006.
- ^ James Dobson Slammed By Professor For Distorting Her Research In Time Magazine, news release from Truth Wins Out, retrieved December 15 2006.
- ^ Yale Professor Says James Dobson 'Cherry Picked' His Research in Time Magazine Article, news release from Truth Wins Out, retrieved December 15 2006.
- Thanx Mish, Destinero should learn how to use hypertext properly - and this is not just copy-paste.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is not my problem when you are not able to click on the link where the quotation come from to find more (including what are you asking for). --Destinero (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy break
- Destinero, you did wrote, that FoF was charged(accused) of something. Yes, that's right, gay activist groups accused FoF, that they misinterpret some research results. To be concrete, they use wording of one scientist that "Child needs mother and father" and they did take it literally. Conclusion is - the scientist said, that there was nothing about sexual orientation (of the father and mother) in the study, protest against to be used as source, and finally, FoF is using another source to say the very same message. But this proves nothing. For example, you accused me from the vandalism here, but actually you did not prove it. For example research of pro-homosexual scientist Kinsey was charged/accused by anti-gay groups many times. And again, this proves nothing. So, once more: I did asked you, if you have some source, which proves, that FoF is or is not reliable source of moral or religious viewpoints in subject of LGBT parenting as in case of other source (American College of Pediatricians) and you did bring one particular case, which surely does not interpret all what FoF is doing. Seems to me that this is common strategy in LGBT activist groups to blame other opinions, so this again proves nothing. Destinero, prove your statement, that FoF is a fringe activist group, that is al what is necessary. My opinion is they are big enough to be not just a fringe of something.--DeeMusil (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant here, since it is based on extreme political activist fringe ultraconservative groups. The evidence is here http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/0806exgay.pdf I've also stated that Focus on Family is a such marginal groups that is even not mentioned in AP or CNN press. It's simply unrealiable marginal extremist source misrepresenting scientific research with negative implications to the LGBT people: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf. This article deserves to be based on the highly reliable sources and you obviously cannot say that APA etc. are (political or religious) activist groups as your FoF, NARTH etc. favourites are. --Destinero (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- If this would be my opinion only, then it would be irrelevant. But always is good to ASK GOOGLE. Googletest confirms, that for Internet community is FoF even more frequent than APA. If you ignore this, I can call this propaganda. And about CNN and AP, i can belive, they are quite lieral, but what about Fox News? Actually, your claim, that FoF is not mentioned by CNN is LIE. Google says this-[1]. Same with AP - Google says this. This proves, that FoF is mentioned by CNN and AP. If you depend on lies, Destinero, your arguments will be rubbish. Additionally, some more search engines: Wolfram knows FoF vs Wolfram does not know APA. This again shows relevant data that circulation of FoF monthly is 1.4 milion, so it is not a fringe thing and it has encyclopaedic relevance. But back into the matter. You did not have statement, that FoF is fringe. That's it. Note, that I do not say, that APA is not relevat. I agree with you that APA relevance is confirmed as professional organization with huge membership.--DeeMusil (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Google searches don't say anything about competence to determine issues pertaining to psychology. FoF might be a valuable source for determining the opinions of a certain religious faction about the ethics of LGBT parenting, but gives us no information about the established facts that relate to the (psycho-social) wellbeing and adjustment of children or the (psycho-social) suitability of LGBT parents. In that context, FoF has nothing to contribute. The best that can be said about them is that despite this, they still think it's a bad thing for some non-evidential reason (that they don't like it, basically). Pretty sure that it is already stated somewhere that religious groups don't like it for some reason. That's not censorship, that is reporting accurately what relevant reliable sources have to say about this. FoF may be a reliable source about what FoF's religious-based views are, but not on the suitability of LGBT parents or the wellbeing of their children, APA are - because they are an independent professional organisation, while FoF is sectarian religious pressure group. One has knowledge, one has opinions, and Google searches like this don't come into it - you would be better searching Google Scholar. Mish (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT hasn't applied to religious leaders at any time in the last couple thousand years. --King Öomie 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for putting in irrelevant sources about extreme groups just because they happen to have opinions that somebody wants included in an article. Who mentioned religious leaders? Mish (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about LGBT parenting - not a soapbox for opposition to LGBT people being parents. Mish (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was an off-topic jab, actually. Carry on. --King Öomie 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mish, you did wrote, that "Pretty sure that it is already stated somewhere that religious groups don't like it for some reason". I wish you are true, but you are not. Destinero deleted last paragraph, which somehow mentioned that. Looks like, contrary you expectations, article is unbalanced. // There is just some sentence without sources about some culture wars between conservatives and liberals... without any specification. PS: doubt about reason you specified.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, all, please tell me, if there is a source in the article as hrc.org, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization with only 750k supporters, because they like it... why there should not be FoF with 1400k of supporters because they dont like it... ?? Conclusion: unballanced, or hrc.org should be deleted. --DeeMusil (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because the article is called 'LGBT parenting', not 'Views about LGBT parenting', nor a WP:SOAPbox for people who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Numbers don't really come into it. Lots of people don't like lots of things - but you don't tend to see their views on the subject in articles. For example, you don't have lots of stuff about groups opposed to Christianity in the Christianity article. Sounds to me that religious groups are covered under social conservatives - but I guess that could be phrased 'religious and social conservatives', with a link to LGBT rights opposition, where all the anti-LGBT stuff tends to live. Mish (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with this, if the text will be tweaked a little and extended in this manner. Issue of this article is, that does not reflect any kind of opposition, and/or unexceptionally remarkable controversy of the subject - what means that article is unbalanced.--DeeMusil (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because the article is called 'LGBT parenting', not 'Views about LGBT parenting', nor a WP:SOAPbox for people who WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Numbers don't really come into it. Lots of people don't like lots of things - but you don't tend to see their views on the subject in articles. For example, you don't have lots of stuff about groups opposed to Christianity in the Christianity article. Sounds to me that religious groups are covered under social conservatives - but I guess that could be phrased 'religious and social conservatives', with a link to LGBT rights opposition, where all the anti-LGBT stuff tends to live. Mish (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT hasn't applied to religious leaders at any time in the last couple thousand years. --King Öomie 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Google searches don't say anything about competence to determine issues pertaining to psychology. FoF might be a valuable source for determining the opinions of a certain religious faction about the ethics of LGBT parenting, but gives us no information about the established facts that relate to the (psycho-social) wellbeing and adjustment of children or the (psycho-social) suitability of LGBT parents. In that context, FoF has nothing to contribute. The best that can be said about them is that despite this, they still think it's a bad thing for some non-evidential reason (that they don't like it, basically). Pretty sure that it is already stated somewhere that religious groups don't like it for some reason. That's not censorship, that is reporting accurately what relevant reliable sources have to say about this. FoF may be a reliable source about what FoF's religious-based views are, but not on the suitability of LGBT parents or the wellbeing of their children, APA are - because they are an independent professional organisation, while FoF is sectarian religious pressure group. One has knowledge, one has opinions, and Google searches like this don't come into it - you would be better searching Google Scholar. Mish (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Trying Again
I see three major issues with this article. First, it needs cleanup to correct errors and to restore an encyclopedic tone. Second, it contains a wide array of repetitive and verbose block quotations that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, in addition to being nightmarishly unreadable. Third, the article does not include even one reference to any perspective on LGBT parenting that does not unequivocally favor LGBT parenting; this (to put it mildly) creates a POV problem.
I have previously tried to do my part to correct each of these issues. The result has been that literally every edit I've made has been reverted on a wholesale basis, regardless of what type of edit it was. Today, I have tried again. I have attempted to clean up the article. I have also attempted to trim many of the block quotations without removing any references or meaningfully changing the substance. I still believe that the quotations are too long, but they are now better than they were.
I believe it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of a minority perspective on LGBT parenting. I have some material that I'd like to propose on the talk page. However, I am going to wait on proposing to include any new material at all to see whether the non-controversial edits I've offered today will be treated fairly and appropriately by other editors. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with 208 above about the overuse of long quotations. There is nothing that cautions against the use of such quotes in Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, but I think it would read better if we cut the quoted material down and rephrased the findings in our own language. -->David Shankbone 19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then let's try to do that. I think it could be better, too, but none essencial facts should be removed as was the case with previous attempts. --Destinero (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've just reduced that passage by 25 % since I remove duplicated statements and less important information. I believe you find it better. It is critically important to quote the issues such as connection between sexual orientation of parents and children's or positives outcomes despite the legal discrimination and not removed it since that place is perfectly appropriate to that. Where else should Wikipedia readers naturally find these informations? I'm convinced that present version could not be considered as quote farm. There were serious effort over past half year to imporove and develop the article, find all highly credible references and pick up the most essential quotes from documents of hundreds of pages. The purpose of this article and section is to provide current fundamental context and main scientific and profesional (= relevant) bodies all around the world, to cover that there is no controversies or disagreement on the results of scientific research in the last 25 years and so on. --Destinero (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Adoption weasel words in article
In the article, now in the part Countroversy is stated, that in the US is allowed to adopt a child except Florida. Actually is not complete truth. Look map of allowed adoptions in another article. There is right to make a petition, then the judge decides if yes or no. Additionally, there is used a source of extreme gay activist group, but there is no reason why, when FoF is not in the article as well. I propose to remove the sentence completely, just make a wikilink to adoptions in another part of article.--DeeMusil (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Nock
Ghostmonkey57 simply cannot add outdated (8 years old) source questioning the validity of some research up to the year 2000 immediately after many current highly credible and peer-reviewed sources published in last 5 years where you simply cannot find Nock accusations. Please clarify why you clearly try to misrepresent the whole issue! Please study Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Use up-to-date evidence --Destinero (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"Over the past three decades, more than two dozen such studies have been published (for reviews, see Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Fulcher, Sutfin, Chan, Scheib, & Patterson, 2006; Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). This body of research is more directly relevant to the marriage debate because it explicitly compares children according to the sexual orientation of their parents, but it is not without flaws. Studies published in the 1970s and 1980s often utilized small, select convenience samples and often employed unstandardized measures. Published reports did not always include adequate descriptions of research methodology. Sometimes key variables (e.g., whether or not an ostensibly single parent was in a cohabiting relationship) were not controlled. However, the overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. More recent research has reported data from probability and community-based convenience samples that were not originally recruited on the basis of sexual orientation (Golombok et al., 2003; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004), has used more rigorous assessment techniques, and has been published in highly respected and widely cited developmental psychology journals, including Child Development and Developmental Psychology. Data are increasingly available from prospective studies (e.g., Gartrell, Deck, Rodas, Peyser, & Banks, 2005; MacCallum & Golombok, 2004). In addition, whereas early study samples consisted mainly of children originally born into heterosexual relationships that subsequently dissolved when one parent came out as gay or lesbian, recent samples are more likely to include children conceived within a same-sex relationship (e.g., by donor insemination) or adopted in infancy by a same-sex couple. Thus, they are less likely to confound the effects of having a sexual minority parent with the consequences of divorce (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf (2005; peer-reviewed)
"This brief has been prepared and reviewed by expert members of the amici – the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists – who are thoroughly familiar with current scientific theory, research methods, empirical findings, and clinical techniques concerning sexual orientation, marriage and non-marital relationships, parenting, and stigma and prejudice. In the informed judgment of amici, this brief presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues. To further assist the Court, we briefly explain the professional standards we have followed for selecting individual studies and literature reviews for citation and for drawing conclusions from research data and theory. (1) We are ethically bound to be accurate and truthful in describing research findings and in characterizing the current state of scientific knowledge. (2) We rely on the best empirical research available, focusing on general patterns rather than any single study. Whenever possible, we cite original empirical studies and literature reviews that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable academic journals. Recognizing that academic journals differ widely in their publication criteria and the rigor of their peer review, we give the greatest credence to papers published in the most authoritative journals, and we critically evaluate the findings reported in all of the papers we cite. We cite chapters, academic books, and technical reports -- which typically are not subject to the same peer-review standards as journal articles -- when they report research employing rigorous methods, are authored by well-established researchers, and accurately reflect professional consensus about the current state of knowledge. In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions. (3) Before citing any study, we critically evaluate its methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests it employed, and the quality of its data-collection procedures and statistical analyses. We also evaluate the adequacy of the study’s sample, which must always be considered in terms of the specific research question posed by the study.3 In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations."
Whereas as noted by Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”; thus Nock accusations are invalid and irrelavant (less credible and undoubtedly outdated); this issue is thereby solved by removing Nock's paragraph. Reverting it back would be inherently unfair manipulation with the facts. --Destinero (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a debate on this, Destinero. You can't act like there is no debate. Some sources will say the studies are good and others will say that it is bad. Nock thinks one thing and Stacey thinks another. I think, in general, one of the problems with education that we always assume there is only one right answer. If you have a problem with the date, maybe we could qualify Nock's statement with a date. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nock's accusations are simply outdated nowadays, since he pointed out on research up to 2000. But all mainstream industry rely essentialy on valid research after 2000. --Destinero (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a more recent article, published by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists that says "According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family."[2] This was published in May/June 2009 so it should resolve Destinero's concerns over how recent the research is. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- "The association didn’t evaluate the research presented within any of the articles, and while several of the pro articles appear to be drawn from academic journals and heavily researched using credible sources, members of CTME describe the con articles as flimsy, based on long-debunked data and reliant on studies conducted by religious institutions. “Frankly, I thought a couple of the [con] articles were lame,” Riemersma said. CTME argues that some of these dissenting views promote discrimination and homophobia against GLBTQ families." http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1123607 --Destinero (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Executive Director Mary Riemersma has now apologized for the publication of the "con" articles, and the entire issue of the magazine has been removed from their web site: "I am sorry that the objectionable articles appeared in the prior issue of The Therapist and that many found them offensive. I too found them distasteful and did not think they were credible. We were trying to create a balance of views and there was a paucity of articles submitted opposing marriage equality. If I had it to do over, we would have rejected the articles. Our ethics for the profession do not condone homophobia, I do not tolerate homophobia, and neither does the CAMFT Board. Let me know what we can do to overcome the unintended harm that some believe we have caused." http://mftprogress.blogspot.com/2009/07/camft-director-apologies-for-articles.html
- Thus, Joshuajohanson should came up with something more serious than with lame, flimsy articles based on long-debunked data and reliant on studies conducted by religious institutions. Unreliable sources like those Wikipedia cannot be used where much more credible peer-reviewed sources from most internationally reputable academic journals and bodies (who prepare and reviewe presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues to supreme courts) are available and used. Wikipedia is not place for promoting extremistic dangerously views and editors should be aware of obligatory Wikipedia policies such as: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." A vital component: good research Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. --Destinero (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- The research that you are quoting includes meta-data that used the prior research that Nock Criticized. Further, Charlotte Patterson, whom you rely on extensively, was involved in a rather significant scandal involving her research. She refused to provide her research methods, even when directed to by a Florida Court, hence her research was stricken from the record. She has been accused of falsifying data. Nock's objections are not to same-sex parenting, rather he is pointing out the sample size problems and other methodological flaws in the research in this area. Those flaws WERE NOT corrected as you suggest in the research that you provided. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a more recent article, published by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists that says "According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family."[2] This was published in May/June 2009 so it should resolve Destinero's concerns over how recent the research is. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would note that the consensus is not nearly as iron clad as Destinero is alleging. The President of The Texas Psychological Association (TPA) stated: "The research data on issues such as this are far from conclusive, and there certainly is not consensus in the professional community upon which we currently can make such sweeping recommendations for social change with confidence." Nock's criticisms are valid and rely solely on scientific criteria. The overwhelming majority of the research in this area was conducted prior to 2000. Most of the more modern studies are meta-analysis that rely on the older studies to come to their conclusions. I also note the use Stacey and Biblarz in the article, yet their primary study in this area (also a meta-analysis) was conducted in 2001. FURTHER the Patterson studies are automatically suspect given her notorious activism in this area and her prior sanctions. This area is not as cut & dry as some might want to pretend. In fact, this article is horribly slanted and gives only one side of this issue. I submit that we must try to be complete and accurate. That means that we don't cut out sources just because they don't advance an agenda that we might share. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Simply and clearly you don't understand the topic you try to contribute and that is why (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Affidavit_of_J_Stacey.html + http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/stacey_biblarz.pdf):
- 4. We have been asked to evaluate the assertions contained in the affidavits of Professors Steven Nock and Craig Hart, filed in the within proceedings. Professor Nock’s affidavit criticizes the methodological adequacy and quality of the social science research on the effects of lesbian and gay parenting on children. Specifically, Professor Nock states that there is inadequate research to conclude whether or not there are any detrimental effects to children with same-sex parents. In this affidavit, we criticize and reject Professor Nock’s assertion that there is no scientifically valid evidence of equal outcomes between children with same-sex parents and children with heterosexual parents. He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. There is significant, reliable social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. The research shows that children fo same-sex coupels are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. We conclude that granting same-sex parents the freedom to marry would likely result in positive outcomes for such parents, their children, gay and lesbian people, and society as a whole. We also reject the assertions of Professor Craig Hart. His analysis is intellectually flawed and the studies cited are irrelevant to the issues in this case.
- 5. Professor Nock’s affidavit makes two major claims, which we will address in turn. His first major claim is that the research on the parenting of lesbians and gay men does not meet requisite scientific standards. He rejects the entire body of research conducted on the question of comparing same-sex parents with heterosexual parents. This body of research represents approximately twenty-five years of scholarship and includes more than fifty peer reviewed studies. Nevertheless, Professor Nock claims that this research is incapable of evaluating the equivalence of parenting by same-sex parents to heterosexual parents or the question of whether same-sex parents cause greater risks to their children. He says that every single study is, in his words, “fatally flawed,” and that “not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research” (at paragraph 119).
- 6. Specifically, Professor Nock asserts that this body of research is flawed because none of the studies that he reviewed (sometimes “the Vermont studies”) use a national probability sample; all use convenience samples that are too small to enable researchers to establish differences statistically between the groups. He complains also that the samples are unrepresentative and findings cannot be generalized to compare same-sex versus different-sex parents. Professor Nock asserts furthermore that the studies fail to develop adequate operational definitions of homosexuality. As a result, there is no sense of the base population, and inferential statistics cannot be used to make generalizations that compare the two groups of parents or their children.
- 8. Professor Nock’s claims regarding generally accepted standards and methods for social science research are inaccurate and biased. Social scientists do not employ or accept exclusively one research method. Instead, social scientists employ and value diverse methodologies, research designs, and types of data which vary depending upon the discipline involved, the research area of specialty and investigation, the questions being raised and the theories that are being applied and evaluated.
- 9. Professor Nock is a survey researcher and demographer, which represents a specific methodology and a sub-field of inquiry within sociological research. When Professor Nock provides his lengthy description of research methodology, he adopts the extreme, untenable position that the genre of large-scale survey research that he generally conducts is the only acceptable research method in all of the social science disciplines and subfields.
- 10. Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise. The body of research with which he takes issue in his affidavit was conducted primarily, if not exclusively, by psychologists with expertise in the field of child development. None of the studies that Professor Nock is evaluating were conducted by sociologists or by demographers.
- 11. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences, like all research in the academy, are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. Research methods, analyses, and findings are reviewed and scrutinized by a scholar’s peers when scholarly papers are submitted for publication. Characteristically, an academic’s work must satisfy the scrutiny and standards of scholars considered to be experts in the field and in the model of research under review.
- 12. The journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology are the two flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. The former is published by the 5,000-member academic Society for Research in Child Development, and the latter is published by the American Psychological Association. Several of the Vermont studies appeared in these rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective periodicals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child development.
- 13. The research methods that Professor Nock advocates, that is, research based on statistically representative national samples, are rarely employed by scholars who publish in Child Development and Developmental Psychology. There is a simple explanation for this. Large-scale survey research methods are too blunt and rigid to adequately address the complex and nuanced questions that are generally at issue when scholars attempt to assess and compare child development under different forms of parenting or adult intervention. Most child development studies profit from having in-depth observations of children with multiple reporters (parents, teachers, clinicians, researchers, etc.) and instruments. Research often benefits when rapport develops between the researcher, the observer, the parents and the children. This is precisely the opposite methodology from the method Professor Nock advocates: he prefers a “fly on the wall” ideal involving a neutral observer conducting abstract survey research.
- 14. If the court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology. The vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would be invalidated as unscientific. The research design of the studies on lesbian and gay parenting that Professor Nock criticizes is by no means peculiar to or below the generally accepted scientific standards of the field. On the contrary, most of the research designs used in these studies characterize predominant methods employed throughout the entire discipline of psychology. In essence, Professor Nock appears to be claiming that psychologists would have to become demographers in order for their work to have scientific value.
- 15. By that standard, almost every study published in the premier journals Child Development and Developmental Psychology would be rejected out of hand. Take, for example, the Nov-Dec 2000 issue of Child Development, in which at least 10 of the 15 empirical studies published employ one or another of the methodological features that Nock rejects as “fatal flaws.” Seven or more of 10 empirical studies in the November 2000 issue of the APA journal Developmental Psychology likewise would end up in Professor Nock’s dustbin. Smentana’s (2000) research on the attitudes of African American adolescents, Martin and Fabes’s (2000) research on children’s choices of playmates and gender development, Taylor et al’s (2000) study of outcomes in children with low birth weight, Kilgore, Snyder and Lentz’s (2000) investigation of the effects of parenting practices on children’s conduct - all of these studies and many more would be deemed unworthy of Professor Nock’s seal of “good science.” On the other hand, they were all deemed scientifically worthy enough to be accepted for publication by the external reviewers and the highly-regarded editors of the most exclusive and tightly-peer reviewed social science journals in their field.
- 16. Professor Nock has confused two research goals: 1) to paint a statistical portrait of a population; and 2) to isolate the unique effect of a particular variable on an outcome. Professor Nock is arguing inappropriately that rules guiding the first goal are the same as those for - or must be applied to - the second goal. While the samples of, most often, lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers used in the Vermont studies are always drawn from their larger populations, they are not always drawn randomly. Nock argues that this means that we cannot be sure that the samples represent an accurate picture of their larger populations. While this makes achieving the first goal - painting a statistical portrait of a population - more difficult, it does not by definition preclude researchers’ ability to achieve the second goal - that of determining whether parental sexual orientation per se has any unique or problematic effects on child development. By matching lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers on a wide variety of variables including age, race, family structure, age of children, socioeconomic position, donor insemination, and so on, researchers ensure that whatever differences may exist between their samples and the larger population are the same for both groups of mothers. Hence, tests for whether differences by maternal sexual orientation are statistically significant are appropriate and valid. These tests uniformly show that a lesbian sexual orientation per se has no negative effect on parenting, nor on children’s healthy psychological development and social adjustment.
- 17. By Professor Nock's standard, we would throw out a good portion of research in medicine that uses inferential statistics (e.g., all of those that conduct t-tests or chi-square tests for treatment effects on small non-probability samples). We would also have to reject the preponderance of research in psychology, psychiatry, social-psychology, anthropology, clinical research, and so on. In fact, some of Professor Nock’s own published research fails to meet his unreasonably narrow methodological standards. For example, Willets-Bloom and Nock’s (1992, 1994) response rate of 49% is well below the 60% rate that Professor Nock says in his Affidavit (para. 83) is the minimum standard for scientific acceptability, and the Willets-Bloom and Nock papers make claims about young people in general based on a very small - by Professor Nock’s standards - sample of 111 male and 131 female undergraduate students at a single university in Virginia - one of the United States’s smallest and most suburban states. To argue that good research is only that which draws large probability samples from larger populations is an unreasonable, extreme position that exhibits also a certain misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the statistical issues.
- 68. Research in the most rigorously peer-reviewed journals in child development and sociology provide generally accepted social scientific evidence that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as similar heterosexual parents. Likewise these studies find that children of same sex couples are as emotionally healthy and socially adjusted and at least as educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents. Research even provides some suggestive evidence that there may be certain hidden advantages that lesbian parents and their children seem to enjoy. There is neither theory nor evidence that leads in the opposite direction.
- 69. Therefore, it seems surprising, if not disingenuous, that Professor Nock, who elsewhere emphasizes the benefits of marriage to parents, their children and society, is unwilling to anticipate that the same benefits, or least some of the same benefits, and perhaps additional benefits, would apply to same-sex marriages and their progeny.
- 70. Finally we would underscore that the issue before the court concerns the impact of marriage on lesbian and gay parenting. Lesbian and gay people have parented for a long time and will continue to do so. The question is under what conditions. Is it preferable for them to parent under conditions of invisibility, conditions of discrimination, or conditions of equality? It is difficult to imagine how anyone could argue in good faith that it is preferable to parent without access to equal recognition, social and legal resources, and benefits that other parents and their children enjoy.
- Thereby I ask you for the last time to stop violating undue weight and using most reliable sources available which are fundamental Wikipedia principles and policies otherwise I report your behavior to the administrator or choose other legitimate ways to settle this inappropriate manipulation and misinterpretation of the facts in the article. --Destinero (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Revert of misinterpreting sources
I've reverted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&curid=7466395&diff=335478512&oldid=334056251
Explanation: "When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
--Destinero (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagreement with a cited source is not a legitimate basis for reversion of sourced material.
72.224.119.207 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere in sources you added is "some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father." Thus you are presenting irrelevant sources for your claims and this is why your edits are reverted. 72.224.119.207, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV, which is pretty clear here: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear here, too: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Destinero: Sentence has been revised and additional references have been inserted. There is no violation of any Wikipedia policy. Please do not revert again; there is no justification. Thank you. Also, I do not understand why you have taken material that I wrote on your talk page and repeated it back to me on this page.72.224.119.207 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 72.224.119.207 I used your words since I feel it the same why. Why you could and I couldn't? Till you are able to prove where your claims presented into the article "children fare best when raised by their two birth parents in intact, married households." came from your edits is reverted because of WP:SYNTHESIS. You simply cannot write what the source don't explicitly say to this issue. Moreover your source do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Furthermore your source are claims of some 3 people which were not published in peer-rewied reliable source. Please stop immediately breaking the rules! --Destinero (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- We've already have many highly-reliable sources in the article. http://www.americanexperiment.org/about/ is conservative think-tank, not neutral source for meta-analysis like amici curiae briefs, peer-reviewed and most cited pediatrical journal Academics and other established neutral psychological bodies from all the world. --Destinero (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Destinero: Sentence has been revised and additional references have been inserted. There is no violation of any Wikipedia policy. Please do not revert again; there is no justification. Thank you. Also, I do not understand why you have taken material that I wrote on your talk page and repeated it back to me on this page.72.224.119.207 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere in sources you added is "some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father." Thus you are presenting irrelevant sources for your claims and this is why your edits are reverted. 72.224.119.207, you have improperly reverted edits to the LGBT Parenting page on several occasions. Today is the most recent example. I must say that I have had enough. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an edit war with you. If you continue, I will consider taking the appropriate steps to have your edits blocked. I would respectfully ask that you please reconsider your behavior, which is both inconsiderate of other editors, very disrespectful, and completely violative of WP:NPOV, which is pretty clear here: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear here, too: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Reason: Because an RfC has been made for this dispute, a Third Opinion is no longer appropriate. FYI, I have made a request for page protection for this article. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
Contributed material by 72.224.119.207 is not supported by sources
WP:NPOV: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 72.224.119.207 (talk) in last days repeatedly contributed claims to the article which were not supported by the sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335727536&oldid=335720803 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335714576&oldid=335495734 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=335478512&oldid=334056251). There were several attempts to discuss this prohibited behavior with the user but without any result. —Destinero (via posting script) 09:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to be the disputed section:
While many child welfare and mental health organizations favor parenting by same-sex couples, there is some debate about whether parenting by same-sex couples provides children with the same social and emotional benefits as being parented by a mother and father.[1][2][3][4][5]
- If I am mistaken, please correct me.
- I am not seeing immediately why this is necessary for this article. All these sources seem to indicate that children need fathers or strong male role models. They Science Daily source does not mention LGBT issues. The Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network does not seem to be a reliable source, but I cannot access it nor the others, but by their titles they seem to reiterate the same points about the importance of fathers. The article does not address parenting without fathers. In fact, potentially, it can address parenting by two fathers. Can the anonymous IP discuss the reason for adding this to the article? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Contributed material by 72.224.119.207 is not supported by sources
WP:NPOV: It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups. WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. And maybe most important WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. 72.224.119.207 (talk) in last days repeatedly contributed claims to the article which were not supported by the sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335727536&oldid=335720803 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335714576&oldid=335495734 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=335478512&oldid=334056251). There were several attempts to discuss this prohibited behavior with the user but without any result. —Destinero (via posting script) 09:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems
- ^ Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.
- ^ "The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.
- ^ Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.
- ^ United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning. June, 2000