Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage and procreation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. krimpet ✽ 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage and procreation

Personal essay full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Prod tag removed by author, whose website is the source of most content. Recommend Delete unless 3rd-party reliable sources can be found in which this concept is discussed. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see why information on this topic cannot be in Same-sex marriage; it does not follow WP:SUMMARY, nor is it even linked to by the obvious parent article. appears to be an essay and I can't think of any way to fix it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay/synthesis; possible COI. Any info which can be sourced should be added to same-sex marriage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing "vote" based on changes made since this comment. , although like Chris, that would change if there was actually a 3rd party source addressing this. I think TenPound Hammer has hit the nail on the head-- COI (conflict of interest) in the sense that there's nothing neutral about the discussion; and it is an original research synthesis, working from the author's proposition that same-sex marriage is opposed because the partners can't conceive children (or that it's viewed as a good legal excuse for opposing it); then forcing the facts to fit the theory. Under that logic, marriage between two senior citizens would be opposed because they couldn't "procreate". Even some of us who aren't opposed to a "civil union" don't like the idea of a same-sex marriage, and inability to procreate is probably the least likely of those reasons. Regardless, essays aren't kept on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - I am the author, and will respond to the above concerns. With regards to links to other pages, I had planned to do so once the initial page was accepted. With regards to making it part of same-sex marriage, I note that there are two separate Wikipages, Status of same-sex marriage and Timeline of same-sex marriage, and there is enough factual material to supply a Wikipage for same-sex marriage and procreation, similar in length to these other two pages - the current Wikipage same-sex marriage is already fairly lengthy. With regards to finding a reliable 3rd-party source for this concept, I point out the Wikipedia entry for same-sex marriage itself, which four times mentions how courts and others have made use of the procreation aspect of marriage, as well as the procreation language from the Congressional report on the Defense of Marriage Act. As there is a much lengthier factual history of such uses of procreation arguments by opponents and proponents, I think it is important to document many of the facts of this history on a separate Wikipage, given the length of the current [[same-sex marriage] Wikipage. With regards to my proposition, all the page currently states is that procreation is one argument used by courts and others to block same-sex marriage, not the only argument nor the most important argument - just one argument (if there are language edits to make this clear, please suggest them). Any remaining language that appears to be in essay style, I am not sure how to respond - there is much language throughout Wikipedia pages that is just as essay-ish or argumentative - even on the same-sex marriage page itself. I admit I am not neutral on this subject, and have created Web pages not part of Wikipedia where I essay and argue my brains out. But there is value to others in cutting other the factual aspects of my other Web pages for this Wikiepedia entry, which I tried to do. If the language I used to glue the facts together is too opinionated (which I take exception to in light of many other Wikepedia entries), please suggest some changes. User:Greg Aharonian 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, our guidelines on reliable sources do not allow us to cite other Wikipedia articles as documentation. Yes, the concept may be discussed on that page, but we're looking for third-party secondary sources where the term is discussed. If you haven't already, I suggest you take a look at the reliable sources policy linked above, as well as the guidelines on original research and synthesis. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible that if there's a procreation argument, it's been raised in published editorials by commentators, both liberal and conservative, and one can cite to opinion that has been published; but offering one's own opinion is prohibited as "original research", meaning that one's own observations or theories are the basis for the article. To illustrate, a case can be argued that the proponents of same-sex marriage did more than any other group to help George W. Bush get re-elected in 2004; and one could attempt to "prove" this by citing to court cases filed during that year and the November results; but that would be original synthesis. On the other hand, if research determined that George F. Will had expressed that opinion in print, and the column were cited to a verifiable source (Newsweek or the Buford Bugle) that would not be original synthesis. Given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue, you might find this referred to in both evangelical and gay-activist literature. The mention of procreation in a court decision is not the same as showing that that was the basis for the court decision. Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Chris' and Mandsford's comments are quite helpful, with regards to "secondary sources" and "original research". Mandsford points out that court decision comments are inadequate. So I rewrote the entire section dealing with the Maryland state court decision, using rulings from the decision itself to show how procreation was indeed the basis for at least half of the decision, if not the entire decision. Indeed, the last sentence of the decision states that Maryland has "legitimate interests in fostering procreation". So if you all could review the rewrite to see if it conforms to standards, I would appreciate it. I also rewrote the section on Congress' comments, adding a reference to a Congressional report that explains the authority of legislative histories when interpreting statutes. Thanks. User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the rewrite. The problem is still that you have too much editorializing in this. Don't get me wrong--- same-sex marriage is a valid topic for an encyclopedia, whether one is for it or against it. In this case, your article could be entitled "Ridiculous arguments against same-sex marriage". To quote from the opening : "One objection raised by opponents... is that homosexual couples cannot procreate, and thus are not truly equal to heterosexual couples." (Then, these bigots use this frivolous minor point to further their discrimination)... "Because of this inequality with regards to an aspect of marriage, courts and others argue that same-sex couples do not qualify for equal protection in the marriage laws in light of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Then, a suggestion for what can be done about this oppression): "They might want to directly confront this issue of procreation" (and how they "might" want to do this) "For example, one way to confront this issue directly is to work with scientists who are developing clinical techniques that make same-sex procreation a practical reality (see, for example, the latest on female sperm as one way to achieve same-sex procreation)." The facts that follow are presented from that perspective. An encyclopedia article has to try to be neutral. I'd find it just as unencyclopedic if someone argued their case with the tired old "Adam and Steve" joke that some preachers think is so hilarious. Neutrality is a difficult thing to maintain, particularly if you feel strongly about an issue. I think that a pro-choice or a pro-life advocate would have a difficult time staying neutral on an abortion-related topic. Not everything that gets published on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia, but no matter what happens, your article has been viewed by a lot of people, partly as a result of being nominated for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Mandsford, I assume you and the others are satisfied that the Contents section has been rewritten sufficiently enough to be "the facts that follow", though I will be glad to receive any suggestions to make the Contents section more neutral (though it is pretty much a series of fact, "in court decision X, on page Y, the court said Z"). And I just rewrote the last sentence of the Introduction, the "What is reviewed below.", trying to make it more neutral. That leaves the first paragraph of the Introduction, which you critique in your most recent comment. I would like to ask a question. Do you think there is ANY wording of the first paragraph to make it a neutral introduction of the facts that follow below (and there are many more facts I would like to add to the Contents section in the months to come - more uses of procreation in judicial decisions, etc.)? If there is such a wording, then over the next few days I will try a few rewrites of the opening paragraph to make it less editorializing. Alternatively, if you can suggest some wording, I would appreciate it. In fact, I am tempted just to get rid of the introduction, and go straight to the facts, but I figure some introduction is needed. User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my vote. I think that you've sufficiently edited this to be an encyclopedia article. It's no longer something that one can say "I agree with this" or "I disagree with this". Given that there will be further court decisions, and in that the ability to procreate is something that has received mention (among other things) in discussions of application of equal protection, I think this is a fair summary of what's occurred so far, and there's room to add to this topic; nations that have permitted same-sex marriage have, no doubt, considered the aspect. If you've not done so already, put a link to this article in other articles about same-sex marriage. Mandsford (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Thanks, I appreciate the comments - it does read better now. Now I can start adding more facts and references. Question (my first time with this) - now that you are a KEEP, what do I have to do to remove the Deletion Tag? User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honored, but it's not really up to me. The debate stays open for awhile, and the tag stays up, until an administrator says "the result was keep" (unless the ultimate result is delete). Then, the administartor removes the deletion tag. At the moment, I think that the closing administrator would acknowledge that the article has been improved since it was nominated, and that nobody has urged a delete after the changes were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Structured for and assembled of selective treatment of the issue, points to POV fork of main article on same sex marriage. No mention of countervailing legal examples (such as Massachusetts). Per nom, this appears to be a personal essay rather than a sincere attempt at an encyclopedic, neutral treatment of the issue. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible conflict of interest. Aharonian is the registrant for samesexprocreation.com, and claims to have submitted a patent application related to this topic. 74.142.90.226 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, then, I think that the possibility has made him more careful about trying to maintain a neutral tone in his writing. The article is not about same-sex procreation, but rather about same-sex marriage. He's editing under his own name rather than a screen name or an anonymous IP number (maybe 74.142 forgot to log in, it happens to all of us); he conceded at the beginning that he has opinions on the issue and asked for guidance on how to bring the article up to code. I'm against same-sex marriage (based on centuries of tradition even before the Founding Fathers, rather than on the matter of inability to procreate). But I'm even more against scrapping a valid topic when the author is trying to make it conform to encyclopedic standards. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. A fair objection has been made about selective treatment of the issue. I have thus started adding information on instances (national laws, court decisions) where marriage has been fully extended to same-sex couples independent of the issue of procreation, and will be adding more information as I re-read those cases (for example, to include some quotes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision). I will also seek out some third party references to explain the disparity around the world of why in some places the procreation issue is important, and others where it isn't, as well as third party discussions of why procreation isn't important. And hopefully others will add as well. User:Greg Aharonian 19 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.