Talk:Heather Has Two Mommies

message: Revised "parents are lesbians" to "mother and mother's partner are lesbians".  IF her parents were lesbians, then her Dad would be a lesbian!
:Sorry cowboy, this is an international encyclopedia, not some U.S. red state. —Christiaan 00:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, "parent" is not synonymous with "biological parents".  Should a child conceived through sperm donation refer to his mother and his mother's husband?  Parenting is about raising children - hence terms like "foster parent", "step-parent" etc.  Does the book delve into the biological relatedness of Heather to her "mommies"?  If not, then this distinction is not only irrelevant, but inaccurate (I can't say, I haven't read many modern children's books).  I assume that 155.84.57.253 has read the book and can answer this question?  In the assumption of good faith I will also assume that 155.84.57.253 is on a mission to clarify the relatedness of all fictional characters in Wikipedia articles, and isn't just here to push a POV.  I eagerly await them all appearing on his/her user contributions.  Guettarda 20:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You should read what you link to.  Both usages exist in that webpage.  More importantly, in talking about an author's book, the author is not the final authority on language in that discussion.  Hence your link, while interesting, has no bearing on this revert war.  Can you cite usage from the book which details the relationship between the two parents, which "Mommy" is the birth mother, etc.?  Can you find something in the Wikipedia MOS which defines that "parent" should only be used for biological parents and that bans terms like "step-parent", "foster-parent", etc.?  It's a simple enough thing to do, if you are so confident that this is the accepted style.  And if it isn't, and you feel strongly, you should make a reasoned argument, supported by usage in English (broadly) that supports that usage and get the MOS changed.  Simple enough.  Guettarda 16:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2005 discussion

message: Joint adoption by unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) was illegal in Massachusetts until 1993.  This is well after the publication date of the book.  Prior to 1993, only married couples or a single individual could adopt a child.  Two single individuals could not adopt the same child prior to 1993.  Therefore, Heather's "parent was a lesbian" rather than "parents", because the other partner had no legal rights to the child under late 1980s Massachusetts state law. See    155.84.57.253, March 11 2005
:So with what word do we replace "foster-parent"? Guettarda 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from not giving a rats ass about authoritarian Massachusets law (the book was written in Massachusets, not this international encyclopedia) "parents" is not some lawyer's jargon but a term to refer to the primary carers who involve themselves in the task of raising a child to an independent adult. I must say I feel sorry for the half of American citizens who have to live with this kind of bullshit every day. -Christiaan 19:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And as I've pointed out on a number of occasions this is an international encyclopedia and I really could care less the relative nature of laws in the U.S. Telling someone they can't adopt a child because of their sexual arrangement is authoritarian. It appears many people agree or the law would still exist. Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps you should stick to comic books and ethnic slurs? —Christiaan 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massachusetts Law 

message: Atlant, I agree that it's relevant that the book is banned, but why is it "merely having that as a cat is not sufficient"?  It seems to me that the way to discuss that a book is frequently challenged and banned is to discuss it in the article text and include it in the category -- which itself links at the top level to the list of banned books.  I haven't noticed any of the other banned books linking to the list, and I don't see why the list of other banned books is relevant to the fact that this particular book is often banned, especially since the catrgory makes that information available. Deborah-jl Talk 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Banned books 

message: It might be worth noting that this edition (which is the one you'll get from the Amazon link) doesn't mention artificial insemination, or indeed anything about the way Heather was conceived or born. The Wednesday Island 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenth anniversary edition 

message: This book, and the politics behind it, became an issue during the 1992 Presidential campaign and 1994 congressional campaign.  It was frequently lampooned and, in 1994, possibly contributed to the perception that the Democratic Party was out of touch with mainstream values and to the Republicans' sweeping success (that was the Gingrich 'Contract w/ America' election).  It would be worthwhile to add a short section on the book's use and possible impact on 1990s electoral politics--  if that can be done without constant, dueling POV issues.169.253.4.21 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree-- and we have an existing example in the use of the book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin by the political movement that created Section 28. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Ramifications 

message: :Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Heather Has Two Mommies.gif

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Heather Has Two Mommies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050314154442/http://www.glsen.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/educator/library/record/27.html to http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/educator/library/record/27.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello All! 
I am a student and my final project for class is to revise a lower ranking article and try to revamp it. For this article I will be:
1. Adding onto the lead section to encapsulate more information about the book as a whole. 
2. Adding more information about the overall reception about the book to show more case by case details
3. Adding various sources to the analysis section since there is only one source cited. 
4. Fixing minor grammatical issues and working to facilitate the flow of the overall article. 
Please let me know if there is something I should be aware of! Amycazares (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits