Talk:Traditional marriage movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Quotes around "traditional"

To retain WP:NPOV I suggest we should consistently use quotation marks around the word "traditional" until there is a solid source showing that there are no marriage traditions which have included same-sex marriages. Comments? Sdsds 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To maintain balance, perhaps we could remove "traditional" entirely, leaving just the phrase, opposite sex marriages? Sdsds 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lesser Validity vs. Invalid

If someone wants to strengthen the sentence about the "traditional marriage movement" view on the validity of same-sex marriage, it would make sense to find a citable source for the stronger assertion. Sdsds 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras, please provide a source for the claim that "invalid" is a better description than "less valid". Sdsds 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of NPOV

"Progressive" when used here is blatant POV. Edit reversed to NPOV. Dispute templates will be added next time an NPOV edit is reversed. No edit wars here. Save that for Talk:Marriage. Nkras 02:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Progressive doesn't mean what one of us thinks it does! But the presence of the term isn't required, and if many readers see it as presenting unbalanced POV, rewording makes sense. Sdsds 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

this article is improperly named

A search on "traditional marriage movement" gets 126 google hits. In contrast, "opposition to same-sex marriage" gets 64,400 google hits. Thus the article should be moved to opposition to same-sex marriage. — coelacan talk — 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish then by all means start an article titled, "opposition to same-sex marriage." Then the topic covered by this page could be merged into a sub-section of your new page. But please don't suggest that all opposition to same-sex marriage comes from the "traditional marriage movement." There are other opponents as well, that this article by definition doesn't cover. Sdsds 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, Sdsds, and it's not my claim that the two are perfectly synonymous. I just want to make sure that this article can pass WP:V and WP:N standards with enough WP:RS, and I'm concerned that with 126 google hits to choose from, it probably can't. The article is still a stub, though, so there's no immediate rush. — coelacan talk — 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I created a Traditional Marriage article with a very good summary by another editor. I was eventually blocked. Traditional Marriage is gone, and Same sex marriage remains. Nkras 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked for doing an end-run around our deletion review system while outspokenly indicating that you were not interested in abiding by Wikipedia policies. No more, and no less. — coelacan talk — 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't start your POV pushing again and enforcement of Newspeak. FWIW, the number of Google hits is immaterial. It is one search engine, and not the repository of the History of Planet Earth. When a Google search returns the placement of Wikipedia articles near the top of the result heap, it degrades the integrity of the information received, because of the predominance of postmodernist POV here. Don't make it any worse. Nkras 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cute. Actually, if we remove the Wikipedia and Wikipedia-mirrors results from Google, the results come up less than 126. Now, concerning this edit, where you say "Not all are correct, therefore, not all must be given equal weight", I don't think you actually read WP:NPOV like you said you would. It says quite clearly that "correctness" (however you define that, as our resident kashrut scholar) is not a consideration that our encyclopedia deals with. Our concerns are that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." I'm sure you're quite ready to embrace that policy, right? — coelacan talk — 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not all information is correct, especially by consensus of a statistically microscopic sample of editors. Conflicting views on issues like marriage are not allowed to be treated with much respect if the source opposes the prevailing Newspeak. The deletion of Traditional marriage was one example, the questioning of the existence of Traditional marriage movement is another. Using policies to delete articles that do not conform to a particular ideology is the Wikipedia equivalent of going to the Judiciary to have a like-minded Court impose their edicts on your behalf - when you know the Legislature won't do your bidding. You couldn't have said it better: "It says quite clearly that "correctness"...is not a consideration that our encyclopedia deals with." If information is not correct, it is incorrect. Wikipedia, therefore, has no credibility. Thank you for finally admitting it. It is done. Nkras 08:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You, of all people, should be quite grateful that we acknowledge "incorrect"/invalid/morally indefensible views. --John Kenneth Fisher 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are you? Self-annointed? Nkras 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I meant no offense. I just wanted to put that on record to assure that when my grandchildren are studying civil rights, and look back at pages like this, they can be proud of their grandfather, and not as ashamed as yours likely will be. You're right, I got too personal, and there's no reason for me to stress (It isn't as though your "segregation forever" viewpoint has lasted in the past, after all.) This is a page for working on the article, and I shouldn't have gotten sidetracked. I'll work on it later today if I get the chance. --John Kenneth Fisher 15:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This is verging on a personal attack. Nkras's grandchildren are not relevant here and suggesting that they would be ashamed of him does not sit well with WP:NPA. Please comment on content not other contributors. WJBscribe 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A classic passive-aggressive response. Good use of substituting "segregation forever" in place of "racist" as an ad hominem attack. Nkras 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You misread "mocking you sarcastically" as passive-aggresive. And let's see - selecting a minority essentially at random to not receive the benefits that we receive, because you have decided we are superior? Yeah - sounds like a pretty straight-forward analogy to me, and directed pretty solidly at your views, not the man making them. Thanks. :-) --John Kenneth Fisher 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are ignorant of history. No point arguing. Nkras 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay! That means I win! --John Kenneth Fisher 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten

Tried to rewrite it a bit to make it more balanced and better phrased and written. I think it gives moe background and is easier to parse now, though I'll have to go back and clean up the sentences a bit, but I have to struggle to not let my biases in, so someone truly neutral should take a look at it. I tried to write a "Term Controversy" section like that in 'pro-choice', as "Traditional marriage" is anything but traditional if you look at how drastically the definition of marriage has changed, but I just couldn't make it read NPOV and not just me gleefully pointing out logic flaws, so in the end I just didn't add that section. I still think it is VALID and worth adding, but I'm not the man to write it. --John Kenneth Fisher 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your lead sentence, people or proponents or advocates might "argue". A movement doesn't argue. Even if this were changed to "proponents of the movement argue", the term is still ... argumentative. Sdsds 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
changed to "whose members believe that" -- but by all means fix it if you have better :-) --John Kenneth Fisher 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better, thanks! Also, regarding the phrase, "in certain parts of the world", are you aware this reads as a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? Sdsds 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Does it? That was an attempt to stay neutral, since an outright "it's more accepted now" isn't true in all places, and a list would be extremely longwinded.... Plus it's easily verifiable.... Personally I don't really see it as a weasel vio, but I'm all for it being improved if you do. Would simply linking that phrase to something like Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships by country help? --John Kenneth Fisher 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As an FYI have mainly reverted nkras's last two edits, but kept the npov portions of both to improve the article. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've restored some of Nkras's edit. The sentences concern the views of members of the movement. It is already clear that it is their interpretation of scripture that motivates them, to stress the disagreement with this seems unnecessary and some members clearly seek to proect a perceived cultural rather than religious identity. Perhaps a Criticisms of the trafitional marriage movement section might be appropriate? WJBscribe 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important background that we mention that there ARE such disagreements. If we had such a section covering criticisms, it could be moved out of the lede, but until then, better to have it there than nowhere. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to say more than that these interpretation are believed by those who are part of the movement. That inherently means it is not a universal view. The inclusion of these comments (and removal of the cultural objection) makes the article reflect strongly a POV that is opposed to the subject, which is unnecessary. The article is not misleading without the note you wish to insert in brackets. WJBscribe 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
okey-doke. --John Kenneth Fisher 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Changed some of nkras's recent edits - discussing here: Added back "personal discomfort with". I know several people who are not religious and do not intellectually object to homosexuality at all, let alone on any religious grounds, but are still not personally comfortable with it and gay marriage. Trying to claim it is entirely religious or cultural is just as flawed as claiming it is never due to religious conviction. I kept nkras' addition of 'cultural'. Also removed the use of "traditional marriage" as that term's accuracy is highly debatable (though the term for the movement is not). I figured it could be written around, or have quotes added, and I think adding quotes is overly POV, so I did not. See the discussion of that at the top of the talk page for what i was basing that one. Also, it is very confusing to unfamiliar readers to describe the movement not as opponents of same-sex, but as "advocates for traditional marriage", (even putting aside the POV-nature of the term itself, as mentioned above.) I doubt many proponents of same-sex marriage equality are opposed to what nkras refers to as "traditional marriage," after all, and by that phrasing, someone could theoretically think lgbt rights groups are part of the traditional marriage movement. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:John Kenneth Fisher is almost certainly correct that "personal discomfort with homosexuality" motivates some of the opposition to same-sex marriage. But ... as the article stands now ... there is no evidence from primary or secondary sources that this type of opposition is part of the traditional marriage movement. This claim needs a cited source. Sdsds 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Created redirects from pro family, pro-family, pro marriage, and pro-marriage. Nkras 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the article to include a citation referencing a source that describes these terms as having something to do with the traditional marriage movement. Can you provide edit the article to add one? Sdsds 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC) and Sdsds 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The websites of the American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Lifesite, Abiding Truth, et. al. Nkras 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think pro marriage and pro-marriage should redirect to Marriage not here. The traditional marriage movement does not own these phrases. People are still pro-marriage (in the sense of being in favour of it) if they seek anon-standard form of marriage. Indeed campaigners for same-sex marriage could be described as extremely pro-marriage in view of the level of activity they understate to try and gain the right to marry. Pro-family should redirect to Family values as the closest article to the topic. WJBscribe 15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If we can't reach agreement on these, they should be listed at Redirects for discussion. WJBscribe 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed for the most part. Clearly people saying same-sex marriage and adoption are okay are pretty much by definition MORE pro family and pro-marraige than groups opposing them. Still, the fact remains that people typing those in are likely looking for anti-family causes. My suggestion would be to point pro-marriage to marriage, but with a "pro-marriage points here, for the traditional marriage movement please see traditional marriage movement". That's a bit awkward, actually, but thinking aloud. It's a balance between presenting what the person is probably looking for, and what they have actually typed in. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The organizations refer to themselves as pro-family, etc. Listen to Evangelical Christian and Relevant Radio sometime. There really should be no debate about this. Nkras 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Not debating that at all. But it's not really addressing the issue properly. --John Kenneth Fisher 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The movement defines itself as pro-family and pro-marriage. You should accept that and not project. Nkras 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact they define themselves as that is not the point. The question where redirects are concerned is what topic the person might be looking for if they type that name. In this case, someone typing pro-family seems to me more likely to be looking for Family values. I am less sure about pro-marriage, but I don't think its clear cut. Shall we start a RfD? WJBscribe 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Other groups also consider themelves pro-marriage and pro-family, even if not in the way nkras would like. An RFD would be a good idea. --John Kenneth Fisher 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started an RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 30. WJBscribe 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. The GLBTIXYZ activists will be all over this one. Isn't there anything that is safe from deconstruction here? Remember, this article is about the "Traditional marriage movement", not a culturally left interpretation of the subject. Homosexualist organizations use "family values" for their own cynical purposes and to redefine the phrase in opposition to it's original meaning. There is no need for an RFD. Nkras 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you drastically overestimate the popularity and action-packed nature of the 'redirects for discussion' section of the 'pedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately we didn't seem able to resolve the matter here so RfD, which involves the full Community, seemed the only option. There is of course a risk the redirects will be deleted altogether. WJBscribe 03:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That you are "a member of WikiProject LGBT studies" and John Kenneth Fisher claims he "is an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community" is not lost on this editor. You're pushing your POV by use of the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Nkras 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If our affiliations/views (which are in neither case secret) bother you, you should welcome more outside opinion on the debate. Or are you worried others who disagree with you may not be so easy to dismiss? WJBscribe 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I am not "dismissing" you. I take your affiliation quite seriously, and concern me when you and like-minded editors begin to project the GLBTIXYZ POV on an article. There should have been no debate about the redirects. I have already stated why. Nkras 13:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
However, we disagree with you on that, and WE have already stated why, which you have yet to attempt to respond to. So let's get some outside opinions. --John Kenneth Fisher 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of my answers will be enough, IMHO. Nkras 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Please narrow down the bible refs

The purpose of references is to allow people to follow them, but our current reference "See, generally, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Torah, or the Old Testament (Christian Bible)." is pretty useless. If we just say "Leviticus" the person might have trouble finding the relevant passages amongst the other rules in Lev., such as "no shrimp", "no clothes of two different blends i.e. Cotton/polyester shirts", "no short hair", "non-virginal brides should be put to death", the sex-with-slaves rules, and the other key sections we accept to this very day as the unerring Word. In all seriousness, let's specify which passages. And the ones that just say "The Torah"... come on. That's just lazy, gives an exaggerated impression, and doesn't help the reader. The books have chapters and verses for reasons, let's use them, and we should mention which translation(s). Many translations with later scholarship and earlier source material come to very different conclusions than some of those from days past. Obviously we shouldn't list EVERYTHING, but being able to say "see Leviticus, KJV blah:blah-blah for one such translation" would be very helpful. --John Kenneth Fisher 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

References cited. Nkras 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks --John Kenneth Fisher 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What, no reference to Leviticus 20:13? Blood, death, abomination! You have to love the New Living Translation: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense." Sorry guys. Rules are rules. Sdsds 10:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) and Sdsds 10:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So... add it? --John Kenneth Fisher 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Why are you apologizing? That's a key one, that I'm surprised we'd missed. I linked to a page that, on quick perusal at least, seemed more appropriate than the Judaica Press ones - 14 translations and limited "some interpret like this" "some interpret like that" without trying to say who is right. (Of course, in this case, all 14 are pretty much in agreement.) This seems far better than merely linking to a specific translation, as that seems to lend itself to "shopping around" for whichever translation offers that specific passage in a way that best reflects the poster's personal biases, liberal or conservative, intentionally or otherwise. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No longer a stub?

Thanks to all of you, by the way, for your excellent work on this. My sense is that the article is no longer a stub. Would it be safe to remove the stub templates? Sdsds 10:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection here. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not a stub any more. Tags removed. WJBscribe 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

UOJCA

Sdsds, I'm not certain whether it is the UOJCA or some other form; I'll be real honest, I wikilinked that based more on the context of the paragraph then any real research. When I Google, that's all that covers the first page. And the link to source there seems to agree. ZueJaytalk 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image is inappropriate

The imgage included of a "traditional" family is absurd. How is it that we know these particular people are traditional? Is it because of the colour of their skin, their clothes, their hair, their makeup?? The fact that they appear to be a heterosexual couple (we don't even know if they are married!!!) in a photo shoot with children that may or may not be their own has absolutely nothing to do with the article itself. For these reasons I am removing this absurd image from this article.--Agnaramasi 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad you have chosen to bring your concerns to the "Talk" page. Thank-you for doing so! Participating in any sort of concensus on this topic is particularly difficult for many Wikipedia contributors. By using the talk page, we can hopefully work together to assure we achieve our objectives for this article.
I understand the image raised a concern for you. I will try to address that. Most of your recent edits raise concerns as well. Perhaps the best approach will be to start again from the point where these concerns appeared, and discuss them before making too many changes. Shall we try that? Sdsds 01:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to start by saying that I do not need an introduction from you on how Wikipedia works. I am already a well-established member seeking to improve the encyclopedia by making sure this article is clear and adheres to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I clearly justified all of my edits in the edit summaries I provided; so I am kind of frustrated that you would revert and ask me to justify myself when I already have. In any case, here are my justifications for the edits: (1) The image is totally inappropriate as I explained above unless (and this I didn't consider earlier) it has been taken from some traditional marriage group's promotional literature [in which case it must be accompanied by a reference]. (2) I rephrased the beginning of the "basis" section to make explicit what was oddly left implicit: the fact that the basis for the movement is to oppose the same-sex marriage movement. Before my edit the section started with something like: "Traditional marriage supporters oppose gay marriage for these reasons...". I think it needed to be made clear that the basis of the movement is precisely to intervene in the same-sex marriage debate. My edit was therefore merely clarificatory. (3) As I stated in my edit summary, I removed the references of the various reasons why traditional marriage supporters oppose same-sex marriage because they were all primary sources that don't properly verify the claim itself. To refer to a traditional values group's report on a gay pride parade and to scripture does not, in itself, offer a verification that the basis for the traditional marriage supporters' opposition to same-sex marriage is for "personal" or "religious/cultural" reasons. In fact, the use of primary sources in this manner to illustrate the claim violates Wikipedia:NOR. Because my last two edits are clearly justified as per Wikipedia policy I am immediately reverting. --Agnaramasi 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I support your effort to improve the quality of the references in the article, which you describe at (3) above. I do however feel that removing those references lessens the readers' ability to ascertain for themselves the views of members of the traditional marriage movement. Can you find some other means to help interested readers understand the motiviations of members of the movement?
I also support your effort described at (2) above to make clear that this movement is a reaction to the same-sex marriage movement. I believe that to be true, but did not have evidence to directly support the assertion. Do you have a good source to cite for this? Sdsds 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to take time to find proper sources for these claims. I just want to make sure that (a) they are clearly articulated and (b) that they are not justified with improper references. Also, the primary sources no matter how interesting for the reader simply violate Wikipedia:NOR; there is no way around that.--Agnaramasi 02:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Implications of the image used

For reference, the image in question here is titled, "Expecting Family." Its use was at the top of the page, by means of wikitext: [[Image:Expecting family.jpg|thumb|A "traditional" family group]].

As regards the previously expressed concern that this image may be inappropriate for the article: please do make every effort to find a better image illustrating the underlying concept! Because a marriage of any sort is a social construct, it by definition cannot be photographed. (Of course a married couple can be photographed, and a wedding event can be photographed. Those ideas might help focus a search for a replacement image. See also the articles on marriage and wedding and the images used there.)

Even with a search underway for a replacement, it probably makes sense to discuss this current image some. It depicts three individuals. One is a man: his gender is made clear by his visible facial and chest hair. One is a woman: her gender is made clear by the shape of her belly, characteristic of third-trimester pregnancy. The third is a child, holding hands with the woman and with her ear placed against the woman's belly. The close physical grouping of these people strongly implies they are a family. That the child is a genetic offspring of the pregnant mother is also implied by their similar hair and skin coloring, and by the shapes of their faces. The child's physical similarity to the man implies he is the genetic father of the child. The attention of both adults is directed at the child's head on the mother's belly. The expressions on the faces of all three imply they place high value on the unborn child, and will welcome its arrival. All of these support the caption, "A 'traditional' family group." (N.B. that caption does not assert the adults are engaged in a marriage consistent with the views of the traditional marriage movement.)

What would a better image provide? Certainly it would be better if wedding rings were visible on the fingers of the adults. Neither adult's ring finger is visible in the image. Even so, the image shows one man, one woman, a happy child, and all three clearly placing a high value on childbearing and childrearing. Can we thus assess this image as acceptably reflecting values of the traditional marriage movement? Or should we search in a different direction entirely? Perhaps a photo of Jerry Falwell? Sdsds 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An image such as this is just not encyclopedic and is not relevent to this article. There can be no "better" image precisely because, as you say, it is an abstract concept that cannot be photographed. It is not a question of discussing how well this image serves as an illustration, because it can never properly illustrate what this article is about. Also note that unattributed images are unencyclopedic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please consult Wikipedia:Images#Using_images if you have any doubts that I am right. Also, as I said above, the only conceivably appropriate image would be an image used by promotional literature from actual group within the traditional family movement, which this obviously is not.--Agnaramasi 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)