Talk:Heather Has Two Mommies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] May 2005 discussion

Revised "parents are lesbians" to "mother and mother's partner are lesbians". IF her parents were lesbians, then her Dad would be a lesbian!

Sorry cowboy, this is an international encyclopedia, not some U.S. red state. —Christiaan 00:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No personal insults, please. That especially includes edit summaries. Thank you. -Willmcw 00:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I encourage the anonymous user to see one of J.J.'s new cartoons and learn the dangers of over-politicizing: [1]. —Sesel 20:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sesel, heal thyself. Apologies to Hippocrates.

As far as I know, "parent" is not synonymous with "biological parents". Should a child conceived through sperm donation refer to his mother and his mother's husband? Parenting is about raising children - hence terms like "foster parent", "step-parent" etc. Does the book delve into the biological relatedness of Heather to her "mommies"? If not, then this distinction is not only irrelevant, but inaccurate (I can't say, I haven't read many modern children's books). I assume that 155.84.57.253 has read the book and can answer this question? In the assumption of good faith I will also assume that 155.84.57.253 is on a mission to clarify the relatedness of all fictional characters in Wikipedia articles, and isn't just here to push a POV. I eagerly await them all appearing on his/her user contributions. Guettarda 20:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:155.84.57.253 claims that because the author uses the term "partner" at some point then we should replace "parents" with partner etc. Apart from the fact that there is nothing inaccurate about using "parent" and that using "parent" reads far more easily and that "whose mother and mother's partner" is silly political correctness, the author actually uses the term "partner" when talking about one in relation to the other, just like people often refer to a father or mother as a "partner" in relation to each other. This article is talking about them both in relation to the child, i.e. parents. Further more, just to push the point home about how ridiculous User:155.84.57.25's edit is, the title of the book is called Heather Has Two Mommies (my emphasis) —Christiaan 23:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to show how ridiculous Chrissy's edit is, "he?" thinks he knows more about the book than the author. What am arrogant and utterly foolish edit. 155.84.57.253, 4 Mar 2005

You should read what you link to. Both usages exist in that webpage. More importantly, in talking about an author's book, the author is not the final authority on language in that discussion. Hence your link, while interesting, has no bearing on this revert war. Can you cite usage from the book which details the relationship between the two parents, which "Mommy" is the birth mother, etc.? Can you find something in the Wikipedia MOS which defines that "parent" should only be used for biological parents and that bans terms like "step-parent", "foster-parent", etc.? It's a simple enough thing to do, if you are so confident that this is the accepted style. And if it isn't, and you feel strongly, you should make a reasoned argument, supported by usage in English (broadly) that supports that usage and get the MOS changed. Simple enough. Guettarda 16:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mothers vs. Parents

LesbianLatke - please discuss reverts and don't call them vandalism. And before you call Christiaan a vandal, have a look at the history of this page. Guettarda 19:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian didn't consult with me, so I didn't consult with him. And I didn't call (him/her) a vandal - I called the action antifeminist vandalism. Is Christian a male or a female? LesbianLatke 9 Mar 2005

Christiaan explained his edits in the edit summary. Usage has been discussed here at length. You cannot call an explained edit vandalism. Vandalism is a serious charge. If you call the edits "antifeminist vandalism" then you are implying that he is an antifeminist vandal. It's a personal attack, especially based on what he says on his User page. Given that he (and others) have put a lot of effort into defending this page from someone trying to inject what appeared to be a right-wing POV, it's totally undeserved.
In his edit history he said: "I think parents is more accurate, as mother, according to Wikipedia, is typically biological". If you disagree with the reasoning presented, then you should present your argument, and back it up with evidence if possible. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. We just had a long argument here with someone trying to change this page to "mother and mother's partner". "Parents" was accepted as superior wording - "parents" is widely used for non-biological care-givers, and so was readily defensible. It is more neutral than "mothers" or "mother and mother's partner".
To quote from Wikipedia policy:
A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.
Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make.
1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.
--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
Hope this clarifies things. Guettarda 20:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's my belief that User:LesbianLatke, User:155.84.57.253, User:Can'tStandYa and more are all sockpuppets. Is it bad manners to suggest such things? I think I could make an interesting case based on comments by these users and their similar edit history. —Christiaan 22:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is bad to casually throw around accusations. However, in this instance there are good reasons to believe that a single user is employing multiple names fraudulently. Sock puppets are not, in and of themselves, bad. But when they are used to give the impression of a consensus, or otherwise skew the editing process, then that counts as abuse and is viewed harshly. The user was already warned about that on the talk:List of political epithets. If the behavior continues there are official procedures for dealing with it. -Willmcw 22:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since a few of you boys are so defensive, I will stay out of your little clubhouse. Happy now? LesbianLatke 9 Mar 2005

[edit] Massachusetts Law

Joint adoption by unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) was illegal in Massachusetts until 1993. This is well after the publication date of the book. Prior to 1993, only married couples or a single individual could adopt a child. Two single individuals could not adopt the same child prior to 1993. Therefore, Heather's "parent was a lesbian" rather than "parents", because the other partner had no legal rights to the child under late 1980s Massachusetts state law. See [2] 155.84.57.253, March 11 2005

So with what word do we replace "foster-parent"? Guettarda 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apart from not giving a rats ass about authoritarian Massachusets law (the book was written in Massachusets, not this international encyclopedia) "parents" is not some lawyer's jargon but a term to refer to the primary carers who involve themselves in the task of raising a child to an independent adult. I must say I feel sorry for the half of American citizens who have to live with this kind of bullshit every day. -Christiaan 19:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Massachusetts at the time had, and continues to have, some of the most liberal and "gay friendly" laws in the United States. Hardly authoritarian. Chris, perhaps you should restrict your comments and foul language to topics you actually know about. 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

And as I've pointed out on a number of occasions this is an international encyclopedia and I really could care less the relative nature of laws in the U.S. Telling someone they can't adopt a child because of their sexual arrangement is authoritarian. It appears many people agree or the law would still exist. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you should stick to comic books and ethnic slurs? —Christiaan 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice cover for your ignorance - going ballistic. You seem incapable of maintaining a civil discourse. By the way, what's an ethic slur? 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

Since you won't fess up to your own quote - I will have to requote you here for the record. Otherwise this exchange makes no sense. "It appears many people agree or the law would still exist. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you should stick to comic books and ethic slurs?" 155.84.57.253, March 14 2005

[edit] List of Banned books

Atlant, I agree that it's relevant that the book is banned, but why is it "merely having that as a cat is not sufficient"? It seems to me that the way to discuss that a book is frequently challenged and banned is to discuss it in the article text and include it in the category -- which itself links at the top level to the list of banned books. I haven't noticed any of the other banned books linking to the list, and I don't see why the list of other banned books is relevant to the fact that this particular book is often banned, especially since the catrgory makes that information available. Deborah-jl Talk 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth anniversary edition

It might be worth noting that this edition (which is the one you'll get from the Amazon link) doesn't mention artificial insemination, or indeed anything about the way Heather was conceived or born. The Wednesday Island 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

How is classified as a childrens book?!?24.144.137.244 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: the purpose of Wikipedia "talk" pages is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. And your use of "What the Fuck", even hidden behind the fig leaf of "WTF", doubtless violates WP:CIV.
Atlant 02:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


well seeing as wiki it self classifies it as such, id say hes right (the first guy, the one with no name) p.s. WTF could mean "Wheres The Fudge" he might just be hungryД narchistPig (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Ramifications

This book, and the politics behind it, became an issue during the 1992 Presidential campaign and 1994 congressional campaign. It was frequently lampooned and, in 1994, possibly contributed to the perception that the Democratic Party was out of touch with mainstream values and to the Republicans' sweeping success (that was the Gingrich 'Contract w/ America' election). It would be worthwhile to add a short section on the book's use and possible impact on 1990s electoral politics-- if that can be done without constant, dueling POV issues.169.253.4.21 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Texxasfinn

I certainly agree-- and we have an existing example in the use of the book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin by the political movement that created Section 28. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif

Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)