Frankfort05

Major

There are hundreds of denominations which support same-sex marriage. The lede is supposed to be a brief summary. Any additional information can be added to the lower sub-section under religion. Pass a Method talk 10:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC) The denominations which I added are very large. They have millions of members. -FF05

Please read WP:LEAD. It indicates the introduction of an article should not be too detailed. It should only give a brief summary. All those denominations can go in the body of the article. Pass a Method talk 10:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What lets you decide what should go in the top paragraph and what doesn't? I have explained my changes well - you can't arbitrary just say 'no I don't want this here'. --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A few days back someone added Reconstructionist and Liberal Judaism. Then somebody added Raelism, etc. Don't you see the implications of having a huge list? Its only a matter of time before the entire paragraph is removed. If you look at the talk page disussion, there was such a proposal only a couple of weeks ago. Pass a Method talk 10:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the list should be kept reasonable, but denominations such as the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada should be there because they are very large. Both have more than a million members, so they should be in the list. --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But they are the same religion as the previously mentioned religions. How about we reword it to simply "some christian denominations". Is that a good idea? Pass a Method talk 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these are very large denominations. They should be specifically listed. I'm sure one of these denominations have much more followers than some of the other religions listed (e.g. Wicca, Druids). So in all fairness, these denominations should be specifically listed. The list is at an ok size right now. --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not about religion size. Its about importance and disctinction. Christian denominations were already mentioned adnd are not much distinct from one another. Jewish, pagan and new age religions were mentioned. Specific sects/denominations are more appropriate for the subsection. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If there should be a uniform and consistent rule for inclusion in that list, it should surely be size of religion/denomination. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Size is an unreliable rule because statistics often differ widely for religion sizes. Also, if we go by only size, all non-Christian religions will be removed because non-Christian religion dont tend to have numbers. Is that your goal? Pass a Method talk 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the others can stay, but surely if they are being specifically named, then these very large denominations should also be. Besides, what's the problem; the list isn't extremely long. It's quite fine at the present size, and even with several more additions, it will still be of a reasonable readable size. --Frankfort05 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you took a look at the archives on the talk page you'd realize there have been several disputes about listing multiple denominations of the same religion (i.e. Christianity) in the lede. Such future disputes are inevitable. Pass a Method talk 18:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, what do you think about removing two of the three denominations and i will also leave the last sentence you added alone. Deal? Pass a Method talk 18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If a future dispute does arise, as you say, then I shall agree to shortening the denominations. But no dispute as arisen yet, and I think it's good to have a fairly comprehensive list. --Frankfort05 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording gives undue weight to Christian support for same-sex marriage. Polls show that Christians are the lrgest demographic opposition to gay marriage but your "comprehensive list" makes it seem as if Christianity is pro-gay marriage. This is misleading. Please read WP:DUE. Pass a Method talk 08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is you added denominations which are mostly centred in one country. Such denominations are more appropriate for individual countries, i.e. Same-sex marriage in Canada or Same-sex marriage in the United States. Pass a Method talk 09:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you simply don't like it, and want to be able to decide for yourself what should be in the article. I'm quite sure that that's not acceptable on Wikipedia. What is UNDUE is to keep Wica and Druids in the list, but not certain denominations which are probably far larger than them. As for polls, in developed countries they show the opposite of what you contend. --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There are thousands of denominations in Christianity. More and more and moving towards favoring gay marriage as we speak. Over the next year or two that paragraph will become too large and will definitely violate wp:lead guidelines which encourage a concise introduction. Do you have any compromises in mind? Pass a Method talk 11:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am currently considering moving the entire paragraph to the "religion" subsection. Pass a Method talk 11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wicca and Unitarian Universalism are actual religions. The definition of a denomination is "an offshoot of a religion".Pass a Method talk 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at this time the list is of a readable size. --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In case you're interested, i have added the same paragraph to the subsection with some additions. Check out in this edit. Pass a Method talk 20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. So anytime less notable and smaller denominations/religions need to be mentioned, they can be mentioned there, and the more notable and larger ones can be mentioned at the top. --Frankfort05 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That response makes it obvious you're new to wikipedia. Nobody has ever agreed on the "notability" of a religion. Some people go by geogrphical distribution, some go by adherent numbers, some go by coverage in reliable sources. Usually the more persistent person wins. Pass a Method talk 10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you call those religions "obscure". Raeism is the worls largest UFO religion. Eckankar according to some estimates has 500,000 adherents and is among the worlds largest new religious movements. Wicca is the worlds largest neopagan religion. Unitarian Universalism is also among the worlds largest NRM's with roughly a million adherents. You should also know the difference between a religion and a denomination. The Christian denominations you keep inserting are so obscure they are not even listed in the Template:Christianity. I am looking for a compromise right now.Pass a Method talk 11:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism and Wicca are notable, which is why they should stay. The others extremely small, and are little known - the religious denominations listed easily outnumber them (UCC for example has over 2 million adherents). The cut-off line should be at about 1 million+ members, and be well noted in several ways. --Frankfort05 (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You have ignored two points i made. Firstly the difference betweeen a religion and denomination - I wish to list them in seperate sentences. Secondly, the fact that your denominations are so obscure they are not listed in the "denominations" section on Template:Christianity. Furthermore WP:Notability is established through coverage in reliable sources. Eckankar and raelism are covered extensively in encyclopedias about alternative religions or world religions. Therefore they do meet notbility requirements. Pass a Method talk 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

-You- are ignoring the major point that I made: there should be a consistent cut-off line for listing at the top of the article. The rest can be listed elsewhere. --Frankfort05 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal goes against WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE. I will (again) repeat that notability is established through coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. If you continue posting responses which ignore wikipedia policy or are at odds with wikipedia guidelines i will raise you username at an appropriate noticeboard. Do you have any comrpomise in mind? Pass a Method talk 12:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Over and over again you have shown that you like to attack and threaten others, war over edits, violate Wikipedia:AGF, and ignore relavent policies such as WP:UNDUE. You should stop this behavior and discuss things on the talk page. --Frankfort05 (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You should also have a look at WP:OWN and WP:ILIKEIT. You do not own any article, and you really need to stop acting like it. Time and time again, you've gotten out of hand. I've already compromised with you on this article before, and have several times pointed you to the proper and relavent Wikipedia policies on these issues, but you've ignored them, and then attack and threaten other contributors. --Frankfort05 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The specifics of due weight are outlined in WP:GNG. You have not mentioned those guidelines. Pass a Method talk 14:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again you've just ignored everything which I pointed you to: see WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ILIKEIT, etc. --Frankfort05 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did actually respond to youe concerns about due weight by pointing out the specifics of these policies - namely coverage in reliable sources. Pass a Method talk 14:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankfort05, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Frankfort05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Hi there. I'm glad to see you, like I, are interested in LGBT-related matters. I invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies, if you're interested. (There's also all sorts of cool stuff you can put up on your userpage if you are yourself LGBT, or consider yourself an ally - not that one has to be either of those things to contribute to LGBT-related articles, obviously.) The reason I'm here, though, is that I wanted to chat about the Conversion therapy article - in short, my thinking is this: The article already does a damn good job refuting "conversion therapy," all objectively and well-sourced, too; to use quotation marks in the lead, on the other hand, is to attach the encyclopedia's voice to those refutations. And even if the APA uses quotation marks when referring to "conversion"/"reparative" therapy, that doesn't mean that everyone does - this article is on the topic of conversion/reparative therapy, which many reliable sources describe using quotation marks; but that doesn't mean that the proper name of the topic is "conversion"/"reparative" therapy. It's generally seen as too subjective to include scare quotes in a lead sentence, and for good reason.

So here's what I think: In general, we'd just drop the quotation marks altogether; I see no real harm in doing that. However, if you can find a lot of reliable sources using them, then perhaps we could write Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy, and sometimes referred to in scare quotes as "conversion" therapy or "reparative" therapy) is....

That may very well be seen as too biased as well, but it's much more of an open question than actually including the quotation marks in the encyclopedia's voice. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I'll have a look at that soon. As for the the article, a lot of sources ranging from the APA to major news sources sources such as CNN, many of which are neutral sources in themselves, place those phrases within quote marks often, so wouldn't it be appropriate for Wikipedia to do so as well? --Frankfort05 (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)