Talk:Violence Against Women Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the word 'restitution' is used wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=restitution

[edit] Section Regarding Men's Rights Activist Groups Reaction

This article is feminist, misandrous, gynocentric POV, so I have added a section on 'criticisms' to provide a balanced POV. Many of the links, articles etc reference criticisms of VAWA and hundreds of other sources are readily found with any quick internet search. For some reason the links section will not appear after this recent revision, please re-insert the links, but do not remove the 'criticism' section that is badly needed to balance this otherwise biased article. --User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 25 September 2006

I think this section should be deleted or significantly paired down as unsourced and violating wp:NPOV. The only reference is to a political activist group whose agenda is reflected by this section. Anybody else have thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcbiglaw (talk • contribs).

The section is obviously POV and original research. I've pared it down to one sentence, which I hope is more or less representative of the views of some men's rights groups. Any more might be giving undue weight to a marginal point of view, when the article is really about the act itself. Next time, do feel free to make bold editing decisions like this yourself - if you're worried it's controversial, just leave a note on the talk page explaining why you did it. --Grace 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The section on Men's/Father's rights activists has violated wp:NPOV... again. I've cut it down to just one sentence, although I think it should be rephrased to sound more neutral. I'm also concerned that the majority of the links in this piece point to sites promoting an anti-VAWA agenda. I feel that it compromises the neutrality of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by tekanji (talk • contribs).

I just deleted the section that said "some father's rights groups/men's rights groups" due to POV and first hand use of "feminazi" for POV. The links provided do not back up what it said. It should not be hard to find the FR or MR group that opposes the Act and give reasons for it, but that was just blatantly POV and name-calling for Wiki.NeoApsara 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has a unbalanced POV that does portrays men as perpetrators and woman as victems. The neutrality of the article is not compromised by criticisms, and it is necessary to point out the abuse and misuse of VAWA restraining orders just as it is necessary to point out the absurdity or injustice by NAZI's or communists to adequately describe them. This article needs an unbiased POV that will allow criticims and point out this abuse of VAWA and false allegations. --User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 18 September 2006 (UTC)

edited and restored criticisms and links for a more balanced POV- this article is being vandalized by those who attempt to stifle the criticims that the VAWA is misandrous, prejudice and discriminates against men - which is the main crticism against the VAWA. User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 10 October 2006 (UTC)

this site is being vandalized and used to instill feminist POV. references and links to sites critical of VAWA are deleted, then crticism of VAWA are deleted for being unsourced or claims of POV, then constantly reverted back to revised PC POV version with no discussion. Recommend a non-feminist non-POV moderator for this site. User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 11 October 2006 (UTC)