I await hearing certain opponents of same sex marriage suggest that there is a correlation between gay rights flag flying at Catholic parishes and non-marital birthrate in those same Catholic parishes in Spain.

I believe it is traditional to claim this “flag flying”- “out of wedlock births” association when explaining away non-explosive growth of out of wedlock births in countries with gay rights campaigns. (Those who don’t get t his, visit Gabriel’s site, and read comment s under “Scandinavian scare”.

(I notice he seems to have completely avoided responding to your data on the Dutch economy.)

I believe, since this vigorous GEMINI movement has not yet reached the all powerful status capable of enacting same sex marriage, we must still consider Bulgaria to fall in the “no same sex marriage” camp. (Or so I am told.)

I am sure we all await further developments with baited breath.

That was one of the reasons I mentioned the title of my article in my response…..

http://amptoons.poliblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=974

As for the women-girls of the Gypsy variety, I think you may want to do some homework on Bulgaria and Eastern Europe. Particularly the share of population, age composition, and birth rates, and family formation customs.

A minority group can make a very significant contribution to non-marital births. Look at how the census bureaus in the Netherlands and in our own country examine stats on non-marital births. [I personally don't buy the concept of race itself, but I recognize the legitimate reasons to monitor demographics of ethnic minorities.] It is not about “blame”, as you put it. Gypsie representatives acknowledge the same facts that Kurtz very briefly mentioned.

Your innuendos implied bigotry where there was none. You were mistaken, again.

–

In that other thread Lucia has repeated the allegation that the source cited in the Anguelova paper was prejudiced.

Supposedly, by Lucia’s speculative word alone, the source is tainted and dismissable.

And it looks like poisoning the well.

Lucia, on what factual basis do you allege that the source cited by Anguelova was prejudiced?

I believe I stated, in comments, that societal prejudice can cause speculative explanations to be introduced into sources, particularly derivative sources. This is particularly true when the derivative source (Anguelova ) is paraphrasing an explanation for current observations from an older document (Belcheva). (Belcheva is in Bulgarian, and I have not read it.)

Because of the source Kurtz cited, Anguelova, is derivative, and neither Kurtz nor Anguelova provide data to the reader which might be used to evaluate the validity of Kurtz’s argument, I believe a reader should be sceptical of using Anguelova’s paraphrase of Belchava’s earlier work to explain what happened during the decade ending in the 2002. It is for this lack of data, and not my observation that Gypsies are disparaged in Bulgaria, that one might doubt the Kurtz’s speculation.

I believe I have said this, but if I was unclear, I hope this clarifies.

That said, I believe it is an unfortunate fact that people do often end up attributing problems to disparaged minority groups. This can happen, despite even when individual authors harbor no ill-will toward any disparaged minority group. Each author simply quotes or paraphrases and explanation of something they find in a previously published document by someone who the author believes (often correctly) harbors no ill will toward the disparaged group. Yet, if we examine the underlying documents, we find no data to support the paraphrase explanation or quote. When a belief is widely repeated in this way, the belief becomes trusted as reliable and data based by many.

In context of the current discussion, Gypsies are a disparaged group in Bulgaria. No data are provided — at least by Kurtz. In my opinion, this factor does need to be considered when assessing the plausibility of a third hand claim made without providing data. I do not believe pointing this out impugns anyone’s motives or work. Others may, of course, have a different opinion.

As to Chairm’s comment that I am repeatedly explaining my view on possible bias, it is true that I am providing this response repeatedly. This is because I have responding each time the Chairm expressed his concerns.

This evasion of responsibility for what was actually written can be put aside for the now.

–

No one here has denied the hardships experienced by Gypsies. Those of us who have felt the backhand of racial prejudice in our society have a small taste of the dish served to generations of Gypsie people for 800 years or more. For example:

GENOCIDE OF EUROPEAN ROMA (GYPSIES), 1939-1945
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10006054&Type=normal+article

–

The Anguelova papers included Gypsie-related material that has been confirmed in surveys, studies, and analyses from credible and reputable sources.

The first paper was not a rough draft. The second paper did not correct the first paper. Lucia mischaracterized the relationship between the two background papers.

1. Each paper is a review of Bulgarian material for separate Regional Reports on the various transitional countries. Each paper feeds a Regional Report and reflects the new theme.

See the complete set
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/cgi-bin/unicef/Lunga.sql?ProductID=315

2. Contrary to Lucia’s speculations, the Belcheva analysis was not repudiated. Rather than “remove” text, the 2001 paper borrowed some but not all text from the 2000 paper for the sake of continuity. The source of the text that Lucia dismissed as suspect actually reappeared both in the text and reference section of the 2001 paper.

It is unreasonable to presume that the 2000 paper had to be entirely republished in 2001; the 2001 paper had a different focus, it was twice the length of the 2000 paper anyway as it included an additional six sources of data and analysis. Repetition was not required.

3. Both background papers continue to stand with the Innocenti series which is widely considered to be the most authoritative on the subject matter.

4. The substance of the text that Lucia suspects was racially prejudiced has been confirmed by Romani representatives as well as a variety of credible and reputable surveys, studies, and analysists. (More to follow).

Lucia has not substantiated her speculation that text had been removed from the 2001 paper due to anti-Gypsie prejudice in the analysis. She got it wrong.

By the same standards that Lucia has just outlined, readers might question the inclination to attempt to discredit material she has not read (language is not a barrier given the other sources), material on a subject of which she has slight knowledge (plenty of background info available), and material that does not fit her predetermined conlcusions. It is not credible to scoff that Kurtz had summarized info that readers probably would rather not wade through on their own. On matters of fact, Kurtz has been right about Bulgaria and Lucia has been mistaken.

Skepticism is healthy, of course. But it is not a one-way street. The Bulgarian example is useful in that it illuminates the broader discussion — both in substance and in form.

For instance, Lucia has mischaracterized Kurtz, again, on the Gypsies. Kurtz has not “blamed” the Gypsies, as Lucia has claimed. The related analysis is not Kurtz’s “theory”, as Lucia has claimed. And Kurtz has not suggested that 100% of the nonmarital birth trend in Bulgaria is attributable to Gypsie teenagers.

More to follow.

>>>Lucia: “Dr. Kurtz provided two hyperlink references to support his teen Gypsy girl theory.”

It was not his theory.

>>>Lucia: “One is an anectdote posted on a geocities web page describing the wretched conditions of poor married and unmarried mothers in Bulgaria. The article provides absolutely no statistics explaining why the nonmarital birthrate has exploded.”

That was a news article. It included statistics that provide background.

>>>Lucia: “That report mentions that some of its contents are based on preliminary analysis of available data; some information is based on contents of earlier reports. The specific items Dr. Kurtz picks out are not based on Anguelova’s analysis or data, but are speculations cited from reports written well before Anguelova performed her analysis.”

It is contradictory for Lucia to claim that on one hand the data was preliminary and on the other hand that the analsyis of that data was somehow out-of-date.

There was preliminary data from recent surveys and these were confirmed even in the second Anguelova paper. Both papers were a reviews of available material so of course Anguelova cited the work of others. The one under contention by Lucia was published just four years prior to Anguelova’s background paper, hardly out-dated as Lucia implied. The cited data, and the cited analysis, were not speculations.

Which Lucia would have learned had she dug just a little past Nationmaster. (That is an impressive website but not always reliable and certainly not a primary source.)

>>>Lucia: “More recently, Anguelova wrote a report containing conclusions based on the final analysis of data collected by the Bulgarian government.”

“Final analysis” would imply that Belcheva’s analysis was incomplete. Lucia has not shown this to be the case. She cannot. The fact is that Belcheva used data that still stands. And her analysis has been confirmed.

Of course, in the background paper for a new Regional Report, Anguelova incuded new data and analyses newly available. Who could have expected that doing so might cause anyone to believe that text that appeared in a different background paper of the previous year was now discredited as prejudiced?

This is not like reading tea leaves or chicken entrails.

It is quite absurd for Lucia to suggest that Anguelova needed to republish the entire text of her 2000 paper — within the new 2001 paper. There was some overlap but there was no need for a full redo.

This served no purpose other than to attempt to discredit a source that Lucia knew next to nothing about.

If the point that Lucia now makes it that she was ignorant of the background material, then, that’s no crime, but it was also no cause to wrecklessly cast aspersions.