Talk:Traditional marriage movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Traditional marriage movement: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Article not about traditional marriage per se
Even though the "protected redirect" Traditional Marriage redirects to this article, the article is most emphatically not about "traditional marriage." The article is about a socio-political movement. It is remarkably easy to blur the distinction between the two, but blurring that distinction would further endanger whatever thin shreds of WP:NPOV we may have achieved. The best way to maintain this distinction is to avoid entirely the phrase, "traditional marriage," except as used in quoting people who support the traditional marriage movement. (It turns out almost any use of the phrase "traditional marriage" is incompatible with WP:NPOV to some degree.) Sdsds 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is excactly why I clarified that "traditional marriage" is an idea used in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, thus situating it in socio-historical context of American politics since the 1990s.--Agnaramasi 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- In this article, please refrain from referring to any marriage, or any type of marriage, as being "traditional". There are many marriage traditions. Advocates of the "traditional marriage movement" would like their restricted definition of marriage to be seen as the only "traditional" type. But as I'm sure you understand, polygamy is traditional too! Does that example help clarify why avoidance of the phrase "traditional marriage" is so vital here? Sdsds 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- As long as we say "the concept of traditional marriage promoted by the tradtional marriage movement" it is cleraly not polygamy. I will spell out clearly that it is marriage between two members of the opposite sex.--Agnaramasi 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- In this article, please refrain from referring to any marriage, or any type of marriage, as being "traditional". There are many marriage traditions. Advocates of the "traditional marriage movement" would like their restricted definition of marriage to be seen as the only "traditional" type. But as I'm sure you understand, polygamy is traditional too! Does that example help clarify why avoidance of the phrase "traditional marriage" is so vital here? Sdsds 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] a child welfare study
What was the thinking behind removing the context for the Brownback quote? The text, "a child welfare study," provides value to the reader, yes? Perhaps that phrasing should be restored. Sdsds 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which study? It is far too vague to be included unless the study is cited and all opinions can be presented as to its credibility, which is beyond the scope of this article. The traditional marriage movement is not a scientific field and so all that the article needs is his opinion, without a survey of scientific studies.--Agnaramasi 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um? A recent edit made the article factually incorrect, and possibly slandered a current U.S. presidential candidate by ascribing to him words he quoted but did not himself author. How much care is required regarding this type of edit? Sdsds 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about????--Agnaramasi 04:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um? A recent edit made the article factually incorrect, and possibly slandered a current U.S. presidential candidate by ascribing to him words he quoted but did not himself author. How much care is required regarding this type of edit? Sdsds 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seeking broader input
Maybe this article would benefit from broader input regarding its content, and its conformance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps some of the article's prior contributors would like to revisit the work in progress. Or perhaps someone could solicit more "eyeballs" on the work through some formal or informal process. Sdsds 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I really improved the the logic, clarity, and organization of this article. I think all that is really needed now is better references. I mean, do you really have any problems with my changes? It sounds much better...--Agnaramasi 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps then you are ready to solicit comments on the article from other editors? Oh, and I think you're right: the article now definitely needs better references! Sdsds 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I for one don't know much about the topic. All I did was clarify several claims that remained implicit and obscure in the previous version of the article. And I can tell you that an honest and explicit lack of references is certainly better than the primary sources and original research that were there before. I invite other editors to add references to the article or to alter its claims if they cannot be verified or are factually incorrect.--Agnaramasi 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps then you are ready to solicit comments on the article from other editors? Oh, and I think you're right: the article now definitely needs better references! Sdsds 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The article could be expanded a lot....why isn't it longer with more references. Is it too controversial?--Amadscientist 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, just a lack of interested editors. If you know of sources with which to expand the article, please do so by all means.--Agnaramasi 13:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture needed
A picture is needed in this article. (sdsds - talk) 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- We already had this discussion. No picture is needed. What exactly would a picture of the "traditional marriage movement" look like?--Agnaramasi 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I continue to believe a photo of what movement members would see as a "traditional family" would add value to the article. It is not a picture of the movement; it is a picture of what members of the movement value. (sdsds - talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You need to stop blatantly violating Wikipedia:Images. This image is inappropriate because it has no verifiable connection to the "traditional marriage movement." Furthermore, as stated above, unattributed images are not to be included in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Images#Using_images). Unless this image is verifiably included in promotional literature published directly by groups which identify themselves as part of the "traditional marriage movement," you absolutely cannot include them. Please stop adding pictures irrelevant and inappropriate to this article. Do not add it again without satisfying the requirements clearly laid out in Wikipedia policy for attribution, relevance, and verifiability.--Agnaramasi (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I continue to believe a photo of what movement members would see as a "traditional family" would add value to the article. It is not a picture of the movement; it is a picture of what members of the movement value. (sdsds - talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This Article Should Be Expanded
I can't help but notice that this article is much less comprehensive than the articles on the pro-gay side of the debate. Perhaps some research on the web sites of pro-traditional-marriage organizations would help. I would recommend the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance for Marriage, Family Research Council, and especially the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
74.76.121.29 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, we try to avoid using blaringly obvious POV websites as sources on Wikipedia. Newtman (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that this is an article on the traditional marriage movement, it seems to me that some POV websites will, by definition, need to be utilized to gain information about that movement. If you have any ideas as to some non-POV websites on the traditional marriage movement that would enable editors to read more on this topic and flesh out this article, please feel free to offer them. Also, I note that the Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage cites to the web sites of the National Organization for Women, the ACLU, the Advocate, and the Institute for Lesbian and Gay Strategic Studies.
24.97.136.210 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if you take a look at the Same-sex marriage in the United States article, you'll notice the times it's "citing" websites that may be POV, it's for the purpose of citing their positions on the matter, and in this case POV websites on both sides are cited. I think you would be hard pressed to find reputable articles that in any sizable way base their content on POV sources. I don't see how this article is POV, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to think up new ideas for skewing it to the right. If you feel that's necessary, be my guest. Newtman (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The point of my note was to suggest some resources that could be used in expanding the article. The article is extremely brief, and the section that purports to summarize the arguments made by the traditional marriage movement is woefully lacking. Again, if you have any suggestions as to how an article on a POV subject like the traditional marriage movement -- and the arguments made by that movement -- can be augmented without using any POV sources, please offer them. I am not trying to skew anything, and I don't appreciate the sarcastic remarks and the accusations. You might want to revisit the Wikipedia entry on civility.
24.97.136.210 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that you'd also have to make a case for the notability of this "movement". I see no evidence that this article deserves any expansion whatsoever.--Agnaramasi (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
