Talk:Fathers' rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fathers' rights movement article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Fathers' rights movement has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6


Contents

[edit] NPOV & Reliable Sources problem

Articles by Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally in The Guardian promote a POV that family policy favored fathers - i.e. that fathers' rights activists are merely complaining that their advantageous positions w.r.t. family policy have been diminished. This is a biased pov from a source that (according to my read of the reliable source discussion related to this article) is not classified as a reliable source. The inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov. Rogerfgay 13:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I doubt you would find anybody that would agree that the Guardian is not a reliable source. It is a well-established newspaper with fact checking and editorial oversight. But you are welcome to pop over to the noticeboard and check. Collier and Sheldon are well-published academics in their fields, have written a book published by a reputable third party publisher on the topic. They and their book, are in my humble opinion the most reliable source that we have here. The fact that you think it in not of neutral point of view suggests more to be that they don't happen to agree with your POV than anything else. --Slp1 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall whether you were involved in the reliable source discussion related to this article. Or - did I thank you for fairmindedness there? The final comment, apparently by an admin. was that reliable sources come only from recognized academic publications; excluding for example MensNewsDaily.com which has been in business since 2001. It is not merely in this case that The Guradian is not an academic source, it is that the article cited expresses a clear bias that has been transferred into the Wikipedia article. An article characterizing the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias. Rogerfgay 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Reliable source discussion referred to WP:RS#Scholarship. Rogerfgay 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am inclinded to delete the references to Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally and the material included that depends on their pov. It strikes me as inappropriate to rely on those who argue against fathers' rights - subtly or openly - to characterize the fathers' rights movement. The characterization that this is a reaction to diminished advantage is an easily recognizable counter-argument in the battle for fathers' rights. Rogerfgay 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Because you see these authors as an important part of the discussion, I have moved the citations to comments in another section. Rogerfgay 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read, as has been pointed out several times reliable sources. You will see that you are mistaken in your intepretation of reliable sources policies, and that respected newspapers are considered reliable sources by WP standards. --Slp1 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in Background and history

I hope this doesn't seem discourteous but, are you kidding? This section was pretty much written to diss the fathers' rights movement, don't you think? Or is that only obvious to me? Tell me if you think so, and I'll explain. But I have to admit - first pass - it looks so obviously biased that I'm not sure that it needs an explanation. Rogerfgay 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child Support Reference

Here's a reference to an article in an academic journal: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/published/ps_oct_2004.htm

The article is also available on the website of the journal and in other web-based collections of academic works. But you have to pay fees to obtain memberships to access those other sites such as JSTOR (where it is beyond submission and actually available now) and Cambridge Journals. I am the owner of the document and have the right to redistribute / make available to the public. Other sources charge fees to keep their operations going, which provide one-stop-shopping for all published articles on their journals lists. Rogerfgay 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you confirm what Journal this was published in? It is not clear from the link you provide.--Slp1 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections

It seems pretty obvious to me that at least two additional sections were needed. "The divorce industry" lies at the heart of major complaints of the Fathers' Rights Movement and is a / possiblly the primary reason for their existence. This may be much clearer in the US than in some other countries - so pardon if UK editors don't see it as well at this point. But the history is that reforms in the US, where "the industry" did drive reforms, spread to other countries via political philosophy on "responsible parenting" rhetoric and welfare reform and such. Rogerfgay 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any possibility that this article can be complete, or even clear, without discussing opposition to fathers' rights. Without opposition, there would be no struggle and no reason for the political movement. There is a very strong and important opposition movement, which in large measure defines the character of the Fathers' Rights Movement (i.e. what they're struggling against). Rogerfgay 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has improved, it's only a good article. I agree that it is incomplete.

The article only mentions the "vested interests" of those who separate children from their parents. I agree that expansion in new section titled "Opposition of the fathers' rights movement" would be necessary to improve the article and paint a more complete picture.

Clearly, as indicated by the recent editing, many do not realize that fathers' rights is a human rights movement. A section that would make this clear would also improve the article.

Michael H 34 01:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sorry if I sound like a broken record (or is it a CD these days?!) here, but please find reliable sources for all of these suggestions. Ideas are great but unless you can find sources they remain just original thoughts and research --Slp1 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a new article be created with the title Divorce industry. This article can then link to it. Michael H 34 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think you would need to be very careful that this didn't end up as a point of view fork. Even the title seems fairly POV to me Slp1 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

I noticed in discussion on reliable sources that someone assumed that, since I have knowledge and have written about fathers' rights, that I must have a conflict of interest. I have no conflict of interest. Rogerfgay 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, for the fact that COI if interest does not just cover financial issues. The guidelines suggest that having a close personal interest, and wishing to promote that interest/group might be a conflict of interest. Also "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."--Slp1 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sip1: I think we've all figured out at this point that you are a strong opponent of fathers' rights and that you're going to do your upmost to battle against a neurtral pov in this and related articles; and that it is you with the COI. Rogerfgay 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not so much. But I am a strong opponent of people using Wikipedia to promote their views and opinions. So to people whose unsourced, one-sided, and/or POV edits/commentaries I disagree with/challenge/delete, it probably looks like I do. Too bad that you had to return on such a comment though. --Slp1 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not so easy to fool. You're pushing the opposition pov, which is not neutral. You're battling against a neutral pov in the way that most people do it. You do not have an argument to make based on logic, so you're attacking the person. Rogerfgay 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Repeating the actions of a previous editor, I have reverting most of the recent changes made to the article, for various reasons. They were badly written, poorly or not sourced at all, and phrased in a POV manner. Please discuss suggested edits here on the talkpage, as has been requested in the past. --Slp1 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sip1. I might understand your pov in, for example, seeing this as involved with a social movement. But people in the fathers' rights movement are not focused on the same issues that you are. They are not for example, the same people as religious right groups. Their relationship is fleeting - just that in both fathers and the relgious right are interested in preservation of family. The current struggle of the fathers' rights movement is a civil rights struggle. The link to civil rights is spot on. The reference to social is not. If you want to support your pov here, then I must ask you to explain. For example, why do you think fathers are not allowed civil rights, or why do you think fathers should not be regarded as natural part of family - or what is it that you would regard as justification for your classification? I guess moreover, and specific to the task of editing Wikipedia, why will you not allow an accurate representation of the fathers' rights pov in an article on the fathers' rights movement? Rogerfgay 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I afraid you are mistaken. I do not have a POV on the subject of Fathers' rights. No, I lie, I do have a point of view, which is that this article should be an interesting, well-sourced and neutral summary of the fathers' rights movement.
If you would care to wade through the archives here you would find that I have been spending way too much of my freetime trying to balance the edits of pro and anti fathers' rights editors (who sadly seem to be the only people who drop around). You will see that I have agreed and disagreed with both Trish Wilson (critic) and Michael H, (supporter), and that miraculously the three of us even managed to work fairly harmoniously throughout the spring. But it really is tedious to have people accuse me of protecting a personal point of view, when all I have been trying to do is uphold WP policies. Please see what follows for an example based on your specific point
I don't know (or frankly care) whether the father's rights movement is a civil rights or a social movement (though I note that Glenn Sacks calls it the latter [1]). As far as I am concerned you are welcome to change it to a civil rights movement if you can find a reliable source that says so and get consensus that this is an appropriate edit. If you can't find a source, well it doesn't matter how strongly you may believe it or even know it, it can't go in, because "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Slp1 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"I do not have a POV on the subject of Fathers' rights. No, I lie...."
May I ask you for a verifiable source for each of these statements? :-) Michael H 34 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I was about to write an affronted response until I noticed your smiley!! Here's mine ;-) --Slp1 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the term human rights movement to civil rights movement, but I agree that article is improved if one or the other is included. The current sentence is unsourced and therefore I ask that the improvement to this sentence not be reverted for lack of verifiability. Michael H 34 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I bet you can guess what I am going to say... find a reliable source. For either, anything, I don't care. I will look too. It has been " a social movement" for a long time without complaint, and since we have been trying to source as we have been going along, I think it is very appropriate to ask for a citation if this is going to be changed.Slp1 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay so I have easily sourced the social movement part. I will leave the HR movement part for the moment but could not find any reliable sources to support this. I will leave this for the moment but please source it soon, or it should be deleted as original research.Slp1 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Michael and Slp1! How are you two? Sorry I vanished like that. I have some writing deadlines to meet.

I corrected a statement in the shared parenting-custody section that really didn't describe the critics view very well. Critics don't cite poverty as the "cause" of "fatherlessness". It's more complex than that, and it's a correlation, not a causation. I cited McLoyd to make the real view more clear. I'm also having some trouble with the formatting. Slp1, can you help me with this? It's been awhile, and I'm having trouble formatting the footnote properly.

Trish Wilson 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I must take issue with the statement in the PAS section that "Critics and members of the fathers' rights movements agree about the danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.[86][82]" The article by Wendy McElroy, a fathers' rights supporter, does not support the statement that "members of the fathers' rights movement" agree about the "danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers..." McElroy talks only about mothers who allegedly had PAS. That's what she's always said. This statement should be changed to read that "critics cite the danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody," and leave it at that. The way the sentence reads now, it sounds as if fathers' rights groups agree that PAS is routinely used by abusive fathers against protective mothers. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and McElroy's article supports that. The fathers' rights movement in no way agrees that PAS is routinely used by abusive fathers against protective mothers in court.

Trish Wilson 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Trish. Good morning Michael and everybody else. This page and especially a related one on (Child Support) have seen lots of action in the last few days. It has ended up with Rogerlgay being blocked for 24 hours for disruption, edit-warring and POV-pushing. There will be lots of eyes on these pages in the next little while, and as a result I suggest that all edit carefully and cautiously, as we do not want a repetition here, and tempers are a little frayed possibly! I suggest that for the moment we go back to the old style of either proposing edits here on the talkpage, or giving systematic and clear reasonings for our edits after we have done them, once again here on the talkpage. I would also suggest that all read the conflict of interest guidelines, which notes that editors need to be very careful about editing when they have a personal interest in an area (either for or against)and this includes groups such as the FRM. Specifically, and as DanielEng pointed out, "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all." Slp1 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Re your edit, Trish. I think that it possibly adds too much detail and is more about the issue than about the FRM than anything else. Maybe a useful addition to the child custody place??. It is also a bit POV (using the word "points out".) I am going to edit out the POV for a start, but in any case, I expect to have some more general suggestions for the direction that this article might go, but I must get to my real work! Slp1 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the extensive detail from McLoyd is included in the article, then the statistics correlated with fatherlessness should be included in the article to balance the weight given the critics point of view. Michael H 34 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The added material is not properly attributed. Michael H 34 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have edited this to reduce duplication etc. Can you explain what you mean by not being properly attributed? I would be happy to take a look if I knew what you meant. Slp1 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed the unattributed sentence: "Poverty and job status appear to be key factors regarding positive child outcomes in single mother homes, not merely the presence or absence of a father."

Your edit is an improvement. I have a suggested change though. Michael H 34 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] needs_NPOV

This article appears to have been built using political debate material, including arguments in opposition to ideas of the fathers' rights movement, as a basis for defining the movement. Although such material could be included, it needs to be clearly presented in a section on opposition to the movement. Representation of the fathers' rights movement as a reaction to dimished advantage is obviously a characterization given by some of the strongest opponents to fathers' rights. Characterizing the movement as a "social" movement and refusal to accept the phrase "civil rights" movement is a direct denial that civil rights issues are at stake. Editors have been rejecting the use of citations to credible sources that represent the fathers' rights movement. Properly cited material is deleted when it supports a more complete or concrete description of actual issues. Rogerfgay 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sip1 - Deleting the neutrality challenge tag is an act of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Rogerfgay 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the tag, while the issues are worked out.

The article includes: "Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims of the legal system."

Slp1: I agree that the phrase "once favouring fathers" may be unclear to the reader. Is it possible that "once provided fathers with automatic custody" is an appropriate substitute based on your reliable source? Michael H 34 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Perhaps you would care to remove the tag, then Michael. I think you suggestion about clarifying the sentence is a good one, and will check the sources and get back to you. --Slp1 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Slp1: Yes, please do. The sentence is unclear and if the clarification cannot be sourced then the sentence should be removed. Michael H 34 03:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims of the legal system."

This sentence is confusing on more than one level. In an article devoted to the dangers of male-bashing, columnist John Leo notes that "the last thing we need in America is yet another victim group, this one made up of seriously aggrieved males." The sentence above in the article is beyond repair. It is an attempt by Collier and other would be social engineers to devalue the claims of the fathers' rights group. This sentence should not be included in the article. I believe that there is consensus that it should be deleted. Michael H 34 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Do not remove very well sourced material (as noted above). I said I would clarify it, and I will. Or you could have done it. Michael, you have an admitted POV and an clear interest in promoting the Fathers' rights movement. You should not be making these kinds of edits since it is clear that you are just POV pushing. Even your explanation makes that clear. --Slp1 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence adds nothing to the article. It is belittling. It is undefendable.

I am not the only person who has objected strongly to this sentence. Michael H 34 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

And your objection is based on what WP policy?--Slp1 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus. You are the only person who believes that this sentence improves the article. More than one person has strongly objected to this sentence. The sentence pushes a POV. It introduces the concerns of the movement as "whiny".

I am disappointed by your statement that "I am just POV pushing." I find it unwelcoming. Michael H 34 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't think that consensus among two point of view editors is what counts. I am sorry that you find the term POV pushing unwelcoming, but welcoming time is past. I have tried over and over again to get you see that it is your responsibility as a WP editor to edit in a NPOV view way. You never acknowledge these requests, never say you will try, let alone actually begin to actually do it. You just continue to delete sourced so-called negative things you find "belittling", or whatever, and adding pro-fathers' rights information only. You complain selectively about information I have added from respected academics. Some of it you like, thank me for, and want to let stand, but other parts (from the same author) you label as POV, because it doesn't agree with your opinion. What am I supposed to think? Of course I have come to the conclusion that you are POV-pushing. I have repeated asked you to prove me wrong about this by editing neutrally. Because you have come a long way and have tried hard to learn and abide by the policies around here, I really think you have it in you to cross this final frontier. Can you do it? Slp1 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement

I have not come a long way. Not once since my very first edit in Wikipedia, have I for example, accused other editors of pushing a POV. My behavior has not just been good or "better than others." It is impeccable, and beyond reproach.

It is not past the time to be welcoming. "Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Act in good faith, and assume others are acting in good faith too. Be open and welcoming."

I am not POV-pushing. I have edited to create an article with a NPOV by attributing the sentences I add. I have added criticism to this article, and I can prove this, if necessary.

I admit to having a POV, which is to make the issues of the FRM as clear and well-written as possible. This does not disqualify me from editing this article. I am invited by Wikipedia to object to sentences that (1) add nothing to the article and (2) belittle the concerns of the fathers' rights movement.

(Notes: "The Family On Trial", Melanie Mays 1981) "The Fathers' rights movement is the civil rights movement of our era. Some belittle...." Michael H 34 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sigh. I try to give you a compliment, and you turn it into some sort of insult. Remember the days when you didn't know how to format references, or that we should do edit summaries, or that any old blog was not a reliable source, or that we can't add our own ideas and research, or that we can't synthesize ideas together to make a point. I think you have learnt a tremendous amount as you have edited here, and it is to your credit that you have great at putting it all into practice. And no, you haven't descended to personal attacks as others have.
Please note I am assuming good faith because I keep saying that you have it in you to be neutral editor, and keep asking you to try it. I still haven't given up hope. I agree you have added some "critical" edits, but you must admit that the percentage as compared to your pro-father's rights edits is very, very small. You are certainly entitled to a point of view, but if you edit the article and the talkpage as you have, then you must expect that people will see it as pushing your POV. Which frankly it is, even if you see it as just objecting to sentences that "add nothing to the article" or "belittle the concerns of the FRM". Funny how often the things that "add nothing" or "belittling" are sourced sections which you interpret as critical. Funny how often extra sections/sentences appear with more FRM advocacy. And I am not the only editor who has noticed the patterns in your edits. But anyway, I give up. I have better things to do with my time than to work on an article with editors who make almost every well-sourced edit a battle royal. Have fun. I have a feature article to save. Slp1 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your help on this article is greatly appreciated. You will be welcome back. Best wishes, Michael H 34 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Richard Collier's POV

The following is a quote from a citation by Miranda Kaye, who I characterize as a critic:

"Nonetheless, while the feelings of suffering are real, the framework of values and understandings which is used to characterise and make sense of both those feelings and the experiences which give rise to them is very-much open to debate.325 Richard Collier makes such a distinction when he talks about, the "disjunction between the very real experience of personal disempowerment which appears to exist on the part of many of these men and the facts of power?”326 We are concerned that the fathers' rights movement, and a number of the media representatives and public figures who deal with these groups, do not draw such a distinction."

After reading this, it is not surprising to me that Richard Collier refers to the fathers' rights movement as a social movement rather than a civil rights movement. I interpret "the facts of power" to mean that fathers have no rights to their children. This is the heart of the issue and Collier is not neutral.

Fathers Rights' activists contend that the human rights of children to both parents and the civil rights of parents to live in peace with their children have been woefully abridged, and they have proposals. Their proposals other than their proposal for shared parenting (no-fault divorce, child support, and the operations of the family courts) have not yet been included in the article. This should be done.

In addition, the very first sentence needs improvement. Michael H 34 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You are misinterpreting "facts of power". My clear understanding is that he means that men are in a more "powerful" position in the world, including physically, economically, professionally, status etc etc as compared to women. You will see that this makes sense in the context of the paragraph and the use of the word `disjunction`. Please note, that while Collier and Sheldon do appear to agree that it is a social movement, the actual references given in this cite are to others. --Slp1 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some irony in the "fact" that your interpretation of "facts of power" is completely opposite to mine?!?!? I accept your interpretation though, even though it never would have even occured to me. Ever.

Richard Collier believes that "male privelege" is a "fact."

One of the irksome statements made by the critics in this article is that "fathers are non-custodial parents because they do not want to be primary custodians to their children." Men know that a custody battle is expensive, not in the best interest of their children, not in the best interest of the relationship with the mother of the children who has been empowered to be a "gatekeeper" to his parenting time, and almost certainly as a result of bias and self-interest of the divorce industry, futile. Although viewed by politicians as having "abandoned his children", he has been forcibly separated from his children literally through "no fault." What is more important than our children? I dismiss the notion that male privelege exists and I strongly suggest that Richard Collier is a NOT neutral source. Best wishes, Michael H 34 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Well, it is too bad that you are unwilling to explore this issue. Personally I find that life is richer if one tries to see things from another perspective, however uncomfortable and challenging it may be at the start. And trying to understand the other view is something we all need to do on Wikipedia when editing from a neutral POV.
The Collier and Sheldon book is a collection of 6 chapters written by 7 different academics from 6 different countries. Are you going to say that none are neutral? Even if they are not, are you claiming that Sacks, Baskerville etc are neutral? In any case, it doesn't matter whether they are what you call "neutral" or not. From WP:V you will note that Wikipedia relies "heavily" on the work of scholars, academics and material published in the most reliable publications including journals, books and mainstream newspapers. That's what these people are and where they have published. Baskerville and his new book too. These are the most verifiable, reliable sources we have, and like it or not these should form the core of the article. BTW, I really would encourage you to get a copy of the Collier and Sheldon book. It is extremely interesting and thought provoking, and not too long! Slp1 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Life is interesting! I have explored the issue! I've read Dickens and Hardy as well.  :-)
These men are suffering what is unimaginable for some and this suffering is juxtaposed with their perceived privelege. These men have had their children taken away from them and it's as if others would like to tell them "enjoy your privelege, sir!" Just become a captain of industry or a governor!
I am willing to say that the academics who do not recognize that a "rights" movement is about "rights" are not neutral. I also suggest that their points of view are not independent.
Maybe I will purchase the Sheldon and Collier book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Best wishes, Michael H 34 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Mmm. I think you are taking the sentence way too literally. Not sure where what you mean about rights movement or that the academics are not independent. Independent of what? But like I said, worrying about what is and is not a neutral source is not necessary, and also pretty much impossible to determine (You and Trish would have very different ideas, for example). We need reliable sources. Full Stop. Slp1 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Independent of what?"

Independent of each other.

"But like I said, worrying about what is and is not a neutral source is not necessary,...."

I agree with you.

The fact that reliable sources need not be neutral may soon become the topic of debate on the Child support discussion page. Michael H 34 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Michael H 34

Yes, this prediction was correct. Michael H 34 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is a different page, about a different topic. Baskerville is obviously a reliable source here.--Slp1 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So this guy is trying to do mass psychological analysis? I haven't read him, so I don't know what possible value his work might have. But it does not appear to be focused squarely on the subject. It is one of many discussions that go off into whatever space an analyst wanted to take it. I presume that the author is a psychologist or sociologist? His general focus of study is most likely the reason for presenting that pov, rather than an effort to characterize the purpose or reason for the movement as accurately as possible. My sense is that a psych approach is being used here to avoid writing about the issues and concerns of the fathers' rights movement; by starting with a claim that it's just a bunch of guys responding emotionally ... to the loss of advantage they once had as men (the extreme feminist argument). Rogerfgay 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither of you have read the book. You are both editors with admitted pro-fathers rights POVs and are to all intents and purposes SPA accounts. And now you are making inaccurate speculations about the content of a book you haven't even read and the authors you know nothing about. Do you realize how unscholarly and inappropriate this is? Do you realize how unlikely it makes it look that you can edit this article in a NPOV way? For the record, the authors work at 8 different universities in 6 different countries. For the record, the authors represent 4 different disciplines, none of them psychology.Slp1 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"You are both editors with admitted pro-fathers rights POVs and are to all intents and purposes SPA accounts."

Actually, I have edited a few other articles related to science. Some edits were minor. Some were not. I honestly admit that I have a POV with respect to this article. I suggest that this should not be considered as some sort of evidence against me or my edits. I have never resorted to name-calling or labeling with respect to other editors.

To me, the aforementioned statement by Richard Collier was not neutral. So what. For all I know, he's changed. Michael H 34 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that you have behaved much better than other editors, Michael. But I remain frustrated by the POV nature of many (but not all) of your edits and many (but not all) of your comments on this page. I would honestly have incredible respect for you if you could edit this article with NPOV, adding the good and the bad about the FRM equally. So here's a challenge. I don't blame you for editing out the Darren Mack part: not nice to be associated with such a man, and I think you were at the time correct that it wasn't that clear what the link between the FRM and him. But it seems from the latest news reports [2] [3] and even a June 2007 Glenn Sacks post,[4](see point 6) that he did consider himself a hard-done by member of the FRM. What do you suggest we do about this now? Slp1 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. Please tell me you are not the Michael H who posted twice at the Sacks column. That Michael H knew a long time ago that Mack had called FR leaders while on the run. He sure sounds like you, but hopefully I am wrong. Slp1 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I imagine that you do not shy away from frustration since you have volunteered your skill and effort on this article. I also suggest that it is not a miracle that we have worked together harmoniously and that the article has come this far.

The CBS report provided innuendo but absolutely no evidence connecting Mack to the FRM. The San Diego article does not mention the FRM. Glenn Sacks's post suggests that Mack tried to join the movement after murdering his wife in a selfish attempt to protect himself. The Las Vegas Sun article does not mention the timing of Mack's association with his "teammates." Mack's motivations were selfish and not representative of the FRM.

How much weight does this man's actions deserve? I suggest that this despicable man deserves no weight in this article. Michael H 34 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That's the problem right there. You consider him "not representative of the FRM" (Original Research). You would like the article to reflect your ideal of the FRM rather than than his "He is despicable", "How much weight does this man's actions deserve?"(Point of View).

Three references make clear that he was involved with the fathers' rights movement and had even made a video for them.

Las Vegas Sun "Prosecutors used testimony from Osborne and Garret Idle, a self-described "teammate" with Mack in a father's rights advocacy group, to portray the attacks as a premeditated plot to end a contentious divorce and send a message to a legal system that he believed had wronged him. Idle was blunt with his disdain for Weller. He said his first act after hearing Weller had been shot was to call Mack, with whom he said he shared views about Weller being unfair and the Family Court system as "dysfunctional" and needing "to be torn down.""We were both teammates trying to tackle a very important issue," Idle said."
Associated Press."Mack had been so angered by the judge's rulings in his case that he'd contacted fathers rights advocates and agreed to a taped interview about his case. Daskas played the video for jurors. In it, Mack railed against the “tyranny” of the court and compared his battles to the Revolutionary War. “At what point do we ... state we're not going to take this anymore. Where do we draw the line?” an agitated Mack says to the camera".
Court TV [5]"In his opening statement, Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Daskas showed jurors clips of a video in which Mack was interviewed by members of a fathers' rights group. He railed against Weller and the family court system, saying at one point that the injustices of his divorce were like those of the American colonists fighting the British — only worse."
In this article you removed the citation and the claim that violence had been done by a member of the FRM. [6] [7] and on the FR by country page you did more: [8] and on the FR's rights in the US, this one [9] None put exactly excessive emphasis on the case.

There are now reliable sources that these edits were accurate (though I agree they were not very well sourced at the time.) Why not show that you are trying to be NPOV editor and restore what was there before (though the new citations would be good!). You haven't responded about whether you are Michael H on Glenn Sacks and therefore knew about the fact that Mack had contacted FR leaders after the murders. If you did then this edit, [10] is problematic, because you knew from Glenn Sacks that he had claimed to be a fathers' rights activist, as the article had stated.Slp1 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Without question, no edit or series of edits that I have ever made in Wikipedia is problematic, both within articles and on discussion pages.

Someone added improperly sourced information about Mack. I reworked this information to state that Mack claimed to be a member of the fathers' rights movement. So it stood for quite some time. However, when I realized that I had been fooled by the CBS article, I removed the information about Mack because even a statement such as "Mack claimed he was a member of the fathers' rights movement" is not properly sourced.

The links you provide here do not state that Mack was a member of the fathers' rights movement and they do not even state that Mack claimed to be a member of the fathers' rights movement.

Even the blog post (why is this a reliable source?) merely states that a wife killer tried to cover up his crime by contacting a fathers' rights group.

Mack should get no weight in this article. Michael H 34 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The links you provide here do not state that Mack was a member of the fathers' rights movement". He was involved, Michael, it is as clear as day. Here's another one [11] "Jurors heard from seven additional witnesses Thursday, including a man Mack met in a support group for fathers who felt wronged by the family court system. Garret Idle said he and Mack both felt terribly mistreated by Weller's handling of their divorces." I absolutely agree that his name and deeds have no place in this article, but merely readding that violence has controversially been used by some madmen members of the members is totally appropriate. Slp1 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article so that it agrees with what has been sourced in the added citations. Michael H 34 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have restored it. Read the 4 sources. He was clearly involved with the FR group before his crimes. I haven`t even linked to the Sacks post about what he did aftewards.Slp1 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He must have sought support from the fathers' rights group prior to his crime, otherwise he would have been turned over to police. Michael H 34 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm confused. Oh okay, I get it. Yes, I expect you are right. Slp1 01:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil rights movement

Too bad you decided not to discuss this first, as suggested, Michael, but anyway. I don't agree that the reference you provided is adequate for this claim. This is an advertisement for a conference/radio show, and has no known author. As such it does not qualify as a reliable source. In addition, the ad also specifically says that others disagree that it is a civil rights movement, (as does title of the conference " Civil Rights Leaders or Reactionary Patriarchs?"). This making adding that the FRM is clearly a Civil Rights movement a very POV statement. If you can find a better source I guess we could add that the FRM claims it is a civil rights movement somewhere in the next. --Slp1 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Fathers' rights movement "has been characterized" was reliably sourced. Michael H 34 19:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I can't argue with the fact that it has been characterized as such. But fathers' rights groups have not formed as social groups. They have formed specificially for the purpose of dealing with civil rights problems. But it may be too much to get through the Wikipedia politics of actually characterizing it for what it actually is. This, and much of the remainder of the article still presents an opposition pov which is not neutral. There will be no lack of citations for opposition argument. Opponents of fathers' rights have been very active and have written a lot. Rogerfgay 07:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A unsigned ad is not a reliable source.--Slp1 19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed the source. Michael H 34 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I'm looking into the other citations for characterization as a social movement. It is not uncommon for a sociologist to study sociology or a psychologist to study psychology. The question is whether the characterization of such a study is also (concidentally) an accurate characterization of the fathers' rights movement. My view is that the benefit of any doubt should be given to representatives of the movement. Otherwise, the article is destined to go off in as many random directions as there are authors to write from different povs, and readers will be left with the impression that the fathers' rights movement has no specific purpose. Rogerfgay 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"My view is that the benefit of any doubt should be given to representatives of the movement." Absolutely and completely wrong. This is an encyclopedia not a FRM promo page. Do you think Enc. Britannica would let FR supporters write the article and determine content? The same goes here. You really really need to read the policies here. They have been pointed out enough times, but here goes again. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Slp1 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Several of the recommendations on page 298 of Taken Into Custody... have yet to be added to the article. Michael H 34 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The section on the divorce industry and the opposition to the fathers' rights movement has yet to be added to the article. Michael H 34 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've made a start. More needs to be added. Michael H 34 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


Kenedy is one of the "New Social Movement" scholars who studies civil rights movements in terms of social justice issues; which ties things together with a common thread for comparative analysis. Mckee defines groups by various common distinctions such as “queer”, black, feminist, and father and treats each of these characteristics as a “social” identity for the group. Regardless of how interesting and authoritative you might find these authors, the characterization of the fathers’ rights movement as a social movement misses the boat. In fact, to what extent is the fathers’ rights movement actually a “movement”? As a broad generalization, there are people who have banned together for a specific purpose, so this term can be applied. But their battle is simply against corrupt government policies that harm them and groups that profit from the policies. It has been necessary for them to form groups because it is now impossible to deal with these issues individually. This does not in my view, a social movement make. Rogerfgay 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"profit from the policies"

The article needs to make this clearer. It is more than just those within the family court system that profit from divorce.

I suggest that a new section labeled Opposition to the fathers' rights movement should describe the vested interests outside of the Family Court System. Michael H 34 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Background and History - recent edits

Slp1: Good job! Well done!

I would like to add "Fathers love their children."

Best wishes, Michael H 34 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I presume you are joking about your last comment! You realize that these analyses come directly from the book you have been disagreeing with? --Slp1 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being sincere. I was not joking about the last comment. Yes, I realized this. Michael H 34 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Well then I will answer sincerely. I don't agree to it. I would see as an attempt to add emotionally-laden POV rhetoric to the article. Sorry --Slp1 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Men are encouraged, by society and by legal factors, to be more involved as fathers at a time when, in certain ways, it is more difficult for them to do so."

I disagree with the truth of this sentence. Michael H 34 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

My first answer is that you should take your disagreement up with Collier. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth". ::My second answer is to inquire whether there might be something that is unclear in the sentence that leads to your disagreement. How are you interpreting it? Slp1 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth". I understand this.

What legal factors encourage father involvement? Michael H 34 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here is the summary of three trends" "that underpin the new prominence of the FRM internationally: firstly complex shifts in household and familial arrangements, secondly changes in the understandings of fatherhood, motherhood and importantly, childhood; finally a shift in how legal regulation relates to the family."
The book has more details later, but is a bit hard to follow, I find! Took me a few readings to get it! In the section entitled "Law, State and Governance":
"This brings us on to the third broad factor that underlies the increased profile of the FRM: the shifting nature of the regulation and governance of family practices within certain jurisdictions. In the UK, for example, it has been suggested that, within a broader context of a political refocusing on ideas of citizenship and responsibility, there has been a clear and determined attempt to effect 'social engineering' in the area of the family by changing the very nature of post-divorce family life. The repositioning of fatherhood has been a central element in this process, with ideas of 'good' fatherhood being reconstructed in complex ways in the the legal regulation of post-divorce family life." Slp1 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"The 'social engineering' in the area of the family by changing the very nature of post-divorce family life. The repositioning of fatherhood has been a central element in this process, with ideas of 'good' fatherhood being reconstructed in complex ways in the the legal regulation of post-divorce family life."

Did these authors provide an example of this social engineering?

Will fathers be required to pay hourly fees to visit their children under the supervision of government-funded employees, who demean the fathers in front of the children and who depend on the operation of the family courts for their jobs? Michael H 34 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Try reading the book and finding out for yourself whether these negative interpretations are justified or not. Hint: they are not. Slp1 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence at issue begs the question, what "legal regulations."

The members of the fathers' rights movement state that legal regulations are separating children from their fathers, and that Bar Associations are campaigning against shared parenting, but the sentence at issue states that "legal regulations" are expecting fathers to be more involved as fathers.

Through innuendo, the sentence pushes the idea that fathers are not involved with and readily abandon their children, but with the help of legal regulations (and the attendant government bureacracy) will a myth of a problem be solved. I object to the inclusion of legal regulations in this sentence unless an example can be provided. Men are being forced to stay away from their children as a result of the abuse of legal regulations. Michael H 34 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: It is coincidence, but this morning I just read about "Responsible Fatherhood Programs" and "Supervised Visitation Centers" on page 254 of "Taken Into Custody..." Michael H 34 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A final word. You are totally misinterpreting this sentence, which is actually a rather interesting look at factors leading to the growth of the fathers' rights movement in the last 30 years. There is no innuendo and actually it is rather positive, if you could only see it. And remember that while you may not agree with it, and can even produce original research to support your contention, that doesn't mean that the sentence isn't verifiable (which it is) and shouldn't be in the article (which it should). But I won't hold my breath. Slp1 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct that I am misinterpreting this sentence, but whether I am or not does not matter. It is not wrong for me to provide my POV about connecting the words "legal regulations" with "requiring fathers to be more involved as parents."

While I was critical about the "legal regulations" sentence and the "new victims" sentence, I was almost overwhelmingly positive about your edits, and I was never critical of you as a person or as an editor. Your effort and skills helped to create a very good article. I fondly wish you well in your future endeavors. If circumstances permit, I hope to welcome you back to this article once again. Michael H 34 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] buying a baby

is it legal to offer money for full custody of a child?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.127.230 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links At End Of Article

Hi, Slp1 and Michael!! You guys have been busy.  ;)

I read your comments to my earlier post, Slp, and I agree with you. It's been a bit heated in here, as well as very busy. I'll post any changes here first and talk to you before making any changes on the article page. I've been very busy with work myself so I haven't been able to help out here.

I do have one change I'd like to suggest. Could the External Links and External Links Critical Of The Fathers Rights Movement be moved farther up the article to just after Notable Supporters? I'm used to seeing footnotes as the final thing in an article, and seeing the External Links pages after the footnotes throws me off a bit. What do you think, Slp?

Trish Wilson 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Bias

Removed badly edited statements that were clearly biased. Unsure whether they need to be rewritten more neutrally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.66.3 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

81.152.66.3 while I understand why you removed the content that removal was not the best option. The lines I reinstated have been included in the section to give a neutral point of view. I did not reinstate the claim that women file less domestic violence and child abuse claims because I can't find that being supported in the references. Also I have reworded the lines so that they are more neutrally recorded. Also please sign your comments using ~~~~--Cailil talk 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thankyou, That was my first edit on wikipedia was I'm a little hazy on the rules. 81.152.66.3 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the content on WP:RS/WP:V grounds. XYonline is not a reliable source, i.e., a "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Specifically, it appears to be a self-published source. Blackworm (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The content should be restored because this article cites the fathers' rights point of view as well as points of view of critics, so XYOnline is a reliable source. I have never before undone an edit, so I apologize in advance if I completely screw it up. Trish Wilson (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to undo the removal of the XYOnline source. Cailil, could you please help me with that? Thanks in advance. Trish Wilson (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument does not logically follow. What the article says has no bearing on whether the source is reliable. XYOnline is clearly a tiny, self-published website resembling a blog, not a news source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please carefully read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) before restoring this unreliable source. Blackworm (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to get into an argument with you. This article has a history of using sources that are both fathers' rights points of view and critics points of view. XYOnline belongs here just as much as the fathers' rights sites referenced here belong here for the purpose of presenting both fathers' rights views and critics views. I'm not sure how to restore a source, so I'll leave that to Cailil.75.69.138.115 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, that was me - Trish Wilson (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to know why the critics view of child support was deleted from the article. There was no reason to delete it, and I don't know how to restore it. 75.69.138.115 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, that was me - Trish Wilson (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The edit you are supporting (using XYOnline as a source), violates official Wikipedia policy, and therefore must be removed from Wikipedia. If you wish to overcome my objections to the use of this source (XYOnline), you must demonstrate that XYOnline is a "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Considering that the XYOnline [home page] states, "XY is run by two people at the moment, and we'll put in as much money of our own as we can. But we can't afford this much. Any contribution, no matter how small, will be gratefully accepted," I believe this will be extremely difficult to demonstrate. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. This article supports sources that both support and criticize the fathers' rights movement. Fathers' rights sources that normally would violate Wiki policy include Glenn Sack's articles from his newsletter, an article from the fathers' rights publication The Liberator, the Fatherhood Coalition web site, and similar web sites that wouldn't normally be supported by Wiki policy. Since those sites provide the point of view of the fathers' rights movement, they are accepted on this article. Likewise, critical views of the fathers' rights movement have been supported here for the past year or so. I'm not sure which XYOnline article was sourced here. Was it one by Dr. Michael Flood? He is a viable source regardless of where he is published. I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. I'll wait until Caillil reads these posts and gives his two cents. Trish Wilson (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You say, "He is a viable source regardless of where he is published," but that clearly contradicts official Wikipedia policy, even if you could demonstrate that his opinion is somehow notable, which you have not demonstrated. The other sources you mention may indeed be unreliable; that depends on whether they are used to state notable opinions from the publishers themselves (as seems to be the case for Glenn Sachs). However, that is not an argument in support of XYOnline being a reliable source, since it clearly is not. Blackworm (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trish is correct, WP:V explains that a source from an established expert can be used even if it is an op-ed and falls close to being "self-published":

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources

XY was and should be used with care - it was not used and can't be used for interpretation, it should only be described (WP:PSTS) since it really is a primary source. Now the notability of Dr. Flood is a non-issue. This is a list of some of his major publications in this field:

  • 'Engaging men: strategies and dilemmas in violence prevention education among men' by Michael Flood in Women Against Violence: A Feminist Journal, 2002
  • Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the Extent of Exposure and Likely Effects by M Flood, C Hamilton, (Australia Institute, 2003)
  • Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities by Michael Flood, Judith Kegan Gardiner, Bob Pease, Keith Pringle, (Routledge, 2007), ISBN: 9780415333436
  • Fatherhood and Fatherlessness by Michael Flood, Australia Institute
  • Mapping Homophobia in Australia M Flood, C Hamilton (Australia Institute, 2005)
  • 'Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice' by Michael Flood in Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities ed. by Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn, R. W. Connell (Sage, 2005), ISBN: 9780761923691
  • 'Divorce, the Law and Social Context' by Michael Flood in Acta Sociologica, Vol. 34, No. 4, 279-297 (1991)
  • Lost Children: Condemning Children to Long-term Disadvantage Michael Flood, (Australia Institute, 2004)
  • Michael Flood & Bob Pease, 'Undoing men’s privilege: and advancing gender equality in public sector institutions’ in Policy and Society vol. 24, n.4, 2005
  • Angela Taft, Kelsey Hegarty and Michael Flood, 'Are men and women equally violent to intimate partners?' in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Volume 25 Issue 6 Page 498-500, December 2001

That list (which is incomplete) makes Flood a notable academic - if you continue to doubt this please RFC this article or ask for a third opinion or request an uninvolved sysop to overview. But bear in mind Blackworm that if your definition of WP:RS is applied to this article all of the other sources on a par with X&Y need to be removed, such as glennsacks.com (cited 3 times), fatherhoodcoalition.org (cited twice), Slate.Com, acfc.org. That would be bad for the article - but if you insist on this, all of the above sites have to go.

As it stands new sources for studies criticizing CTS have been found. These 2 or 3 lines are enough to make the piece comply with offical policy - NPOV - no more needs to be said. However more sources exist criticizing the CTS from articles in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence from 1992 to at least 1997. I feel that any more would be undue so I would advise leaving it at this. I am sorry that my post was so long, too many issues were raised for a shorter comment--Cailil talk 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

XYOnline does not "fall close" to being self-published, it is entirely[50% not entirely -BW] self-published, as I have demonstrated above. Flood, the "expert" you wish to quote from this source, is one of the two owners of XYOnline (a blog website), which apparently has no print version, no distribution, no editorial board, no staff, and no income.
In your quote of WP:V, you curiously truncated the last sentence, without using ellipses to alert the reader that you had done so. The full WP:V sentence is: However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. I concur with this. If CTS (which was not self-published) has been criticized effectively, then it has been done in peer-reviewed sources (which I'm sure it has). The fact it has been done in self-published websites is irrelevant, no matter who has published that information. Surely a better source that a self-published website can be found if criticism of CTS is notable enough to be presented.
You seem to share an overly common but extremely inappropriate belief that editing Wikipedia articles is a kind of quid pro quo, where sentences with offending unreliable sources or non-neutral POV are to be bartered and traded. I do not share that view, thus your apparent threats to remove material you seem to believe resonates with my personal POV are completely powerless over me. I am helping build an neutral encyclopedia, that actually adheres to its stated goals; I'm not trying to suppress material I don't agree with, if that is your impression. Each source's reliability is to be evaluated separately, not grouped together based on what POV you believe them to be espousing. If you wish to discuss the reliability of a different source than the self-published website under discussion here, then I invite you to begin a new discussion section. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this, Cailil: we generally agree that if these self-published websites from otherwise notable parties (as shown in WP:RS) are to be cited, we disclose this in the article's prose; similar to attributing views when views are notably split. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
By "this" I mean the fact the sources are self-published (e.g., On his website, Flood claims...). Blackworm (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for this. The reference link makes the source clear enough.Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N P O V declaration.

The Fathers Rights Movement in and of it's self is a P O V. Any contribution to an article in opposition of the goals of this (or any) "movement" would be in contrast to any sort of N P O V on this subject.

To maintain a Neutral Point of View on any movement, one must only stick to the citations of the goals, history and actions of the movement. Any "reaction" to this movement is, defacto, a Point of View.

I am, in no way, saying that one cannot be opposed to the movement. Merely that this article should not have ANY opinions either for or against the subject of the article. However, being that in this case, the subject of the article IS a collective opinion and the subsequent actions of its supporters, any citations of statements in opposition of the movements actions and/or opinions is not neutral to the article.

--Pappaapsu (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New background and history section

Regarding this reversion of my reversion of this new section, I just thought I'd explain myself better and see if I could get a discussion going.

  • As written, it's hard to read with all of the case citations interruptng the sentence flow. The citations should be in the references section to improve readability.
  • It lists a bunch of case law precedents without really showing how they form the "history and backround" of the Fathers' rights movement - I understand how the law is the precursor, but feel that the article should make the connection more strongly. Some of the details might be better suited to an article about family law.
  • It doesn't come close to representing a worldwide view - it's all about the US.

A word on my POV - I just want to defend myself against the assertion that my deletion was not NPOV, especially since you can tell from my user name that I am a woman, therefore obviously not a father. I'm not a mom (yet?) but I watch this article because of the heartbreaking trouble my fiance is going through with his ex just to spend time with his son. My bias is in favour of Fathers' rights. I really just want to help improve the article, which was why I deleted the section in the first place, so here I am belatedly following my own advice, and seeking consensus on the talk page. I still think that the article would benefit from having the section removed until the information can be edited and rewritten. Any other thoughts, opinions, etc.? Dawn Bard (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)