Talk:Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?

Question regarding "did you know" appearance on main page

This article is a stub. It does not appear to meet the wikipedia neutral point of view policy. It has not been been ranked for quality or importance for any of the projects that is a part of. Why was this chosen for the main page in the did you know section? DrTh0r (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate any article, and articles have to be reviewed for length, sourcing, and quality before being selected. You're free to open up a discussion of what you feel are the neutrality problems, or to rank it yourself, but if you're not going to participate in the process, don't complain about the results of the process. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I mention this article is a stub come from the bottom of the article it's self. I am not mounting an attack or "complaining" just questioning. The reason I asked why this was chosen for the did you now section was I was unaware of what the did you know policy is. I am aware that Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. I have now read the did you know and I would note that the "hook" is a matter of opinion in this article. The pamphlet that this article discusses states that Marxism my arise from the new morality of sex education. It seems to be to be a leap to say that the pamphlet "claimed that sex education was a Communist conspiracy." If the hook takes the source out of context so as to change it's meaning is it not a false "hook"? DrTh0r (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware it's a stub; I created this article and put the stub tag there. Is the problem that you think it's too long to qualify as a stub? I disagree, since I think a lot more information could probably be included about the document (for one, I'd love to get my hands on a copy so I could include more about its contents), but whatever. Or is the problem that you think it's too short to be a DYK article? Because there's a hard and fast minimum length, which this surpasses. Anyway, if you have more information, go ahead and add it - that would be great.

The "Communist conspiracy" isn't OR from the quote; it's in the cited sources. The Bruess book doesn't even provide the quote (the other two sources do), but it still notes that the pamphlet described sex ed as part of a Communist conspiracy. Maaaaaybe reading the cited sources might be a good idea before the next time you decide something's original research, eh? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read the sources and I agree with DrTh0r that the DYK hook is original research. Irvine states "it hinted darkly at a Communist agenda" and goes on to speak in general about Communist conspiracy theories regarding sex education. Cornblatt is referencing Irvine when he says "framed sex ed as communist indoctrination". Bruess and Greenberg are writing about a promotional letter, not the pamphlet itself. Much of this article appears to be synthesis/original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a contested fact, and it's also kind of bizarre that you're suggesting that the promotional letter, which basically summarizes the pamphlet, is going to say something completely different. Unfortunately some of these are only available on Google Snippet View, but here's another source that explains that the letter introduces the booklet as revealing the conspiracy, here it says that the conspiracy applied both to the letter and to the booklet, and here it says Drake argued that "sex education would usher in a Communist takeover" (though I guess if you really wanted to, you could argue that that would happen by accident). And here, "Dr. Drake pioneered the allegation that school sex education was communist." Sex Ed and the Reds also says that the pamphlet "relentlessly hammered at connections between sex education and internationalism and their nightmarish consequences," though I suppose internationalism and communism aren't used as synonyms in propaganda one hundred percent of the time.

Given that this is a fact agreed upon by a preponderance of sources, I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the synthesis tag yourself. You're also required to begin a specific NPOV dispute when you post an NPOV tag, so if you don't actually have any comments about the neutrality, please remove it.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the idea that sex education could lead to a Communist takeover with the idea that it was a Communist plot or conspiracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also providing you with a number of sources that say the pamphlet called sex education communist or said that it was part of a communist plot. How many more do you want? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with DC, most of these sources are peripheral and hint at possible perceived future consequences. Could we just get a copy of the pamphlet itself? - Haymaker (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted a resource request for it a while ago, but nothing appears to have come of that. Would you care to address the sources I've provided that directly state that the pamphlet described sex ed as part of a conspiracy? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a copy of the pamphlet and you appear to be cherry-picking references to suit your view. I don't think anyone is questioning the possibility that the pamphlet actually says that sex education was a Communist conspiracy, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the references. I'll do some copy-editing and see if we can find something acceptable to all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Cherry-picking references" implies that you have sources that contradict this. Could you provide them, please? More sources can only help. Now please a) read the sources I linked that directly state that the pamphlet described sex ed as a communist plot b) either provide a rationale for your NPOV tag, as required by the policy, or remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such implication in my statement and no onus on me to "contradict" your view. On the other hand, you (as the person adding the information) need to be able to support anything you add per WP:VERIFY. None of the sources conclusively states that the pamphlet directly states that the pamphlet says that sex education was part of Communist conspiracy. Three editors have suggested that your interpretation of sources is original research, and you have responded with bluster. I don't have the patience to deal with such an aggressively stubborn editor, so feel free to remove the NPOV tag and give yourself a point for doing so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel so martyred to this article by having a tag you added removed. It's really not a huge sacrifice - maybe next time you'll produce a rationale for adding it, per the guidelines, so that you won't have to make that sacrifice. As I stated several times over, the sources are quite, quite clear. If you don't want to click the links for some reason (laziness? fear of having your view contradicted? mistaken belief that Google Books will give you malware?), I can even quote them for you (or you can look below at the RfC where I've already done so). For your edification, you could also read the Wiki article on cherry picking (fallacy). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All of those sources seem to be implying the current statement. I'd be more comfortable with a quote from the pamphlet, or better yet, the pamphlet itself. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you again: Did you read the sources I provided? That would be very helpful. They are quoted below. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did read the sources you provided. However the point that I and other contributors have tried to express is this article has 11 references but not the original document. Until the document being discussed in the article is available this article is a synthesis of published material. If the synthesis of published material is used to express a opinion or point of view then then it violates the neutral point of view policy. DrTh0r (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. As Sarek pointed out, we have secondary sources that make exactly the same statement that our article makes. The synthesis would be if we took a primary source (the pamphlet) and inserted our own interpretation of it. Not if we took a secondary source on the pamphlet and faithfully reported the content of the secondary source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Is it original synthesis to say that this pamphlet claimed that sex education was part of a Communist conspiracy? I (Roscelese) argue that, among other references provided, these sources more than establish that fact:

• "Written by Gordon V. Drake, Christian Crusade's education director, the booklet, according to the promotion letter, was to unmask family life education as part of a 'GIANT COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY'" - American School Board Journal
• "The booklet and letter were explicit in regarding family-life and sex education for youth as 'part of a giant communist conspiracy'" - Sexuality: a search for perspective

Delicious carbuncle and Haymaker argue that I am "cherry-picking" my sources, and that to say the pamphlet claimed that sex ed was part of a Communist plot is original synthesis.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment These sources appear to be reviewing the pamphlet. If they are to be included, at the very least the sources should be placed into the context of reviews with appropriate attribution. Lionel (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about "reviewing." Just because something was published one or three years after doesn't make it a review. (The Grummond in particular seems very unlikely to be a review.) But if they were reviews, what of it? Do we have reason to believe that they are lying about the content of the pamphlet? I don't think that's a standard we hold any other article to. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the quoted text in the article says that "children will become easy targets for Marxism..." That's a step short of arguing a communist conspiracy.

One might suggest that "We must teach our children to be Mets fans, because otherwise they might easily become fans of the hated Yankees." But that statement doesn't imply the existence of a coordinated "conspiracy" of Yankees fans, maniacally heck-bent on converting rightful Mets fans into pinstripe wearers.

Roscelese, I see your quotations above from sources that *do* use the term "conspiracy." If most editors believe those sources to be providing authoritative synthysis on this subject, then I'd suggest changing the quotation in the article to explictly reference the "conspiracy" allegation. As the article is currently written, though, the quoted text in no way implies a conspiracy, and the term "conspiracy" should be removed.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Would your concerns be assuaged if we directly quoted the sources above (both appear to be using "giant communist conspiracy" as a direct quote from the pamphlet), in addition to the quote already included? Naturally the quote already included doesn't on its own confirm that the pamphlet asserted a conspiracy, but other sources clearly do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Provisionally, yes; I think the allegation of a communist conspiracy requires a direct quotation from one or more of these sources. Perhaps something like "Later sources suggested that the pamphlet's purpose was to 'unmask family life education as part of a giant communist conspiracy.'" The "children will become easy targets..." quotation should stay in as well, I think. Ideally, we get our hands on a copy of the pamphlet. I'd love to have one for historical interest. What do other folks think? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to get a copy too - it's so hard to write about a document only from secondary sources! I posted at resource request at the beginning of February, no luck there; asked at the talkpage for Billy James Hargis in case anyone there knew, no luck there either. Where else do you think we could ask? I agree in principle that quotes should be cited to the direct source; however, in this case both secondary sources put the phrase in quotation marks, suggesting that they are quoting the pamphlet (or the accompanying promotional letter). If we are to include the quote from the secondary source rather than just the primary-source phrase "giant communist conspiracy," I would suggest this wording, rather than what you said: The pamphlet aimed to "unmask family life education as part of a 'giant communist conspiracy'." That preserves the quotation marks from the secondary source which indicate a quote from the original and does not imply that this was an interpretation that later sources were reading into it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Until a copy of the text can be found I think the conspiracy allegation should be shied away from. - Haymaker (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Since reliable sources make statements like "School House was the most widely circulated critique in the sixties debates and hinted darkly at a communist agenda" (Irvine), it's neither original nor synthesis. We don't need to read the pamphlet ourselves -- THAT would be original research. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you find unsatisfactory about the two sources quoted in the RfC? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither of the two sources provided above clearly identifies the pamphlet as using the phrase "communist conspiracy". The first quotes the promotion letter not the pamphlet, the second uses a mixture of quotes from both so it is unclear if the pamphlet actually says this. This appears to be a case of an editor trying to put forward a particular view despite what the sources actually say. The promotional letter actually appears to be more useful in terms of providing statements regarding COmmunist conspiracies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you find unsatisfactory or less than crystal clear about "The booklet and letter were explicit in regarding family-life and sex education for youth as 'part of a giant communist conspiracy'"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Template:POV instructs editors - not as a suggestion, but as a rule - to remove the POV tag when "No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page." Please do not re-add it without beginning a discussion on the neutrality. Saying there is already a discussion going on is not going to cut it, since no one has suggested that the supposed synthesis lends bias in favor of one side or another. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is enough debate here to warrant it. - Haymaker (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your tendentious editing. You are required to provide a reason for adding a neutrality tag. "There is debate over a completely different thing" and "It just isn't neutral, dammit!" are not acceptable reasons. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The article focuses primarily on the "unfounded anecdotes" aspects of the pamphlet, in the 2nd and 3rd paras. It constitutes a criticism section w/out the section title. An example of a NPOV addition would be addressing how it "shaped modern neoconservatism." The POV tag is appropriate.Lionel (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is one mention of "unfounded anecdotes" (from a history book published by Harvard University Press, not from a sex ed advocate); we don't detail what they are, we don't include criticism of their ridiculousness, we don't include criticism of the pamphlet's rhetoric. The third paragraph describes the pamphlet's content with absolutely no critical angle. (However, I do think more on the pamphlet's content would be a great help. Do you have access to a copy? I don't, and none of my requests have proved fruitful.)

The "shaped modern neoconservatism" is, as you can see, from the journal article by Moran. He doesn't set it up as "School House -> neoconservatism" but rather as "School House -> anti-sex-ed movement -> neoconservatism." (He uses the phrase "New Right" - am I correct in paraphrasing with "neoconservatism"?) I thought it was an important connection to include - this is an influential little book! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem now. You're equating "New Right" with neoconservatism. Actually, neoconservatism refers to a quite specific political disposition relating to foreign policy. The term "New Right" can refer to any number of things. (also you made a mistake about referring to JSTOR, but I'm assuming you've realized that) OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

((by the way, I have no quarrel with you here, I'm also a feminist and I'd wager we agree on most political-social issues!) OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That would do it! Linguistics (neo/new, conservative/right) has failed me. :D I'm not sure what you're referring to with my JSTOR "mistake" - it's true that not all users have access to it. In any case, could you restore the text and replace "neoconservatism" with "New Right," rather than removing it entirely? I'd do it myself, but I don't want to add a pointless revert when we could just agree on something. (I see you're new, so you may not be aware of the three-revert rule - let's both try to stay on the correct side of it. :D) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done! A pleasure working with you Roscelese :-) OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)