Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Balance

This article is understandably a tricky one, in that supporters and/or critics of the fathers' rights movement are drawn here. Unfortunately their perspectives seem to influence their edits, in that it is easily guessable the editors' conscious or unconscious biases and opinions pro or con the movement. Examples are the way sourced deletions are made, advocacy and weasel words added, and the language of opposing opinions weakened.
This could be a really good article, folks, and I mean a Good Article but editors need to examine carefully their motives and understand that the goal of Wikipedia and this article is to present a neutral, balanced description of the FRM. It is NOT to advocate for or against fathers' rights or to put the movement and its issues in a better or worse light. If you are a supporter or opponent of the movement then it may be more difficult for you to judge a balanced article and language, and you may need to be more careful with your edits, but that doesn't mean that editing in from a neutral point of view isn't be an achievable goal for all. I would like to challenge editors to read this essay, and become trusted NPOV editors whose opinions one can't even guess from their edits.
And yes, let's make getting this article up to GA standards a goal. Slp1 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

SLP1, I offer you my best wishes, and I will respond later. Michael H 34 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that this article is a tricky one. The article would be nearly empty if the viewpoints of the members of the fathers' rights movement were not included.

I strongly agree that the article should have a neutral point of view. I strongly disagree that the article needs to have balance in order to keep its neutral point of view. This article does not require the inclusion of the viewpoints of the critics of the fathers' rights movement at all. As long as statements are attributed: "Members of the fathers' rights movement state that", the article maintains its neutral point of view.

I do think however, that the article is improved by including the viewpoints of the critics and thus giving the issues more depth.

I disagree with the implication that the article is not already a good article. Thanks in part to your abilities and efforts SLP1, the article has been greatly improved. While I readily admit that I do have a viewpoint, I am also willing to explain, justify or defend every series of edits that I have ever made to this article. I would prefer to move forward with the common goal that you presented of improving the article.

I noticed that you used the word soapbox in your challenge. Many of the viewpoints of the fathers rights movement are clearly presented and in some depth. Some readers may find them persuasive. This is not a flaw of the article, this is its strength.

If you wish to achieve a more balanced article, then I would suggest adding to and expanding upon the viewpoints of the critics rather than subtracting from the viewpoints of the members of the fathers' rights movement, including the responses to the critics.

I am willing to help add viewpoints of the critics, but I may need to use the fact tag and allow other editors to provide better sources for the material than I could. If any of the material is OR, then please feel free to remove it.

Best wishes,

Michael H 34 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Michael H 34

Thanks for your response, though I fear you have misunderstood me at least in part. I do apologize if I was not clear. I agree completely that the article should contain a summary of the movement's objectives, methods and the organization in general. I also agree that it is a good article in many ways, thanks in great measure to your efforts, Michael, though it isn't an official Good Article, with a plus sign and all (!) as it would need to jump through a few hoops to get there.
I think my choice of title for this section was unfortunate. I don't actually think that the article itself is that unbalanced. What I would like to request is that editors seek to become balanced NPOV editors, people who do not let their personal opinions and views influence their reasons for adding or subtracting things. So that one cannot even tell from their edits what views they hold. It is an excellent skill to try to develop, no?
I didn't actually use the word 'soapbox', but in your response you do in part confirm one of my fears, which is a mistaken idea about the purpose of Wikipedia articles. They are not supposed to be 'persuasive' of anything. Note that WP policy states "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views". Articles are to educate people so that they can draw their own informed conclusions. People on both sides need to examine their motives to be sure that they not trying recruit, convince or persuade people that their way of thinking (pro or con the movement) is right.
When I have some time I am going to go through the article carefully again. I will likely make some changes that I will clearly label in edit summaries. Other issues I will bring to the talkpage for discussion. --Slp1 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestions/problems

  1. I have a problem with this sentence:
"Fathers' rights movement or Parents' rights movement is a social movement whose members are primarily interested in issues affecting fathers, mothers and children related to family law, including child custody and child support sometimes after divorce." In particular, we need some sources for this, and especially the apparent extensive focus on the mothers issues in this opening. In fact, the whole background section needs work since I think it would be better if this overview was cited with more reliable sources than newsletters from individual FRgroups etc. There is also historical information needed here. To be done.
2. I have added back some of the links, books etc, but it would be useful to go through them and sort out the wheat from the chaff. To be done.
3. I have done my first run through of the whole article. What I notice is how long and wordy and difficult to read the sections are, and how much advocacy back and forth seems to be going on. I think the next step is to prune and condense the sections so that they give the information more clearly.

--Slp1 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried revamping one paragraph by figuring out the key points and then grouping them together appropriately. Some of the detail is gone as a result, but the refs are all there so that those who want more info can find it. I do think that the flow is much better now.--Slp1 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reworked the shared custody section which was more painful, but I am still happier with the result. Here I have deleted some sourced claims from both 'sides' either because I did not feel they were well sourced or because they were extra examples or advocacy about the issue that did not add to the article overall. --Slp1 02:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of a novice Wikipedian, I suggest that the inclusion of what might be referred to as advocacy (from any viewpoint) is acceptable. These are the relevant points of view! Of course it is imperative that the article itself maintain a neutral point of view through attribution. I did not mean to suggest that the purpose of the article would be to persuade readers to a particular POV. However, I suggest that it is not at all desirable to write an article that limits the viewpoints from either side, in order to prevent readers from being persuaded. With that said, I applaud your recent edits for the improvement in the readability of the section on shared parenting. Michael H 34 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

It all depends what you mean by advocacy. What I mean by advocacy is massaging the text and the content so that it better illustrates one's point of view. This is more possible on this article than on many others because we have allowed blogs and websites as sources about the FRM, so the opportunities for finding cites for things one agrees with are almost limitless. Wee could go on attributing endless points of view just because one critic or one FRActivist wrote it once somewhere. We need to focus on the main claims and main points. --Slp1 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Balancing readability against an inclusion of the depths of the argument, and at the same time balancing the appearance of favoring one of the conflicting viewpoints is a challenge. I like the changes that you made to the section on child support. Michael H 34 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I suggest that the following sentence be changed.

"Members of the fathers' rights point to studies on intimate partner violence using the Conflict Tactics Scale, which suggest that men and women act violently toward their partners in about equal percentages,[66][67][68] and that men incur one-third of the injuries resulting from intimate partner violence."

The first phrase doesn't explain why members of the FRM point to these studies. I suggest that in addition to requesting government services for men, members of the FRM are trying to combat a stereotype of all men as (potentially) violent (and thus incompetent parents). Mentioning Conflict Tactical Scales twice seems unnecessarily redundent and also seems to artificially give extra validity to the critics reasonable view that the injury statistics should trump the tactics statistics.

Michael H 34 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I totally agree that this whole section needs to be rewritten to explain the why these things are importan (amongst other things). It is a mess, and I will try and get to it tomorrow.
Maybe I am misundertanding you, but I absolutely think that the bit of the FRM claims about the CTS needs to be mentioned. It is a major claim repeated by many FRAs, and if the critique hits home, so be it. Having the critique without the FR claim would be pointless, since this article isn't about Domestic Violence but about FRA claims about it. --Slp1 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that after the CTS was developed, no other studies on DV are done. Some FRAs may point to the "about 50%" part and not mention the undisputed fact that more women are injured as a result of DV than men. However, I must point out that as a leader in the movement, Glenn Sacks does not hide this fact and when providing a condensed phrase for the press states that "men comprise a significant minority of victims of DV." (I imagine that many FRAs are sympathetic to the view that the most important statistics are based on injuries. However, I think that critics like M. Flood are inconsistent when they criticize attempts to limit testimony in custody hearings to be based on evidence.)

- The DV issue is also about custody of the children. FRAs believe that a stereotype that fathers are dangerous may be in part what is responsible for "Fatherphobia." - - Enjoy the clean up of this section. Michael H 34 14:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Mmm. I think there are masses of studies of DV ongoing. I am afraid I am not sure what you mean about Flood, but in any case it seems more your opinion than anything else, which is fine but can't go into the article. I find your final comment about DV very helpful in giving a context to this whole issue, and I plan to make it the starting point of the section.

BTW I still don't find your latest addition sourced: the article seems to be a gripe about magazine article and not much else.--Slp1 01:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for the best interest standard is reworded to create a false dichotomy between best interests of children and fathers' rights. "...more focused on symbolic issues...." It's a strawman argument and not an argument against shared parenting. As a result, reconciling presumptions can become viewed as an issue. Dame Butler-Schloss wonders whether a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting creates two conflicting presumptions.

The "gripe about the article" points out the false dichotomy between best interests of the children and children's rights. Michael H 34 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Right at the beginning, we read, “…custody determinations are traditionally based on what’s in ‘the child’s best interest.’ But some fathers are now arguing – and agitating – for rights and interests of their own.”

Author Warren Farrell translates this as follows: “The press is telling us, mother custody equals ‘the child’s best interest.’ But shared custody, or fathers’ custody, equals rights and interests of men before children.” In reality, children do best when there is a balance between mom and dad."

"There is not a single quotation or statistic from the dozens of eminent scholars who believe children of divorce and separation need more time with their fathers."

"Warren Farrell seems to have it right. Even the most intelligent press is relying on stereotype: when mothers want custody, it’s for the children. When fathers want custody, it’s about their rights. "

I think that that this is notable. Michael H 34 02:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, but what you wrote was "and that the best interests of children are not contrary to the rights of fathers and children to spend time together". I suspect this is a strawman of its own, but in any case nowhere in the article does it say this exactly. One can imply it perhaps, but that would be synthesis. --Slp1 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the phrase viewed as synthesis with words that convey the meaning and that are from the citation. Michael H 34 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I am afraid I still don't understand how this sentence "adding that critics claim that shared custody, or fathers’ custody, equals rights and interests of men before children, but in reality, children do best when there is a balance between mom and dad.[43]" is a response to what goes before, which is about fathers being practically involved in parenting. In addition to finding it very difficult to understand grammatically, it is also highly POV with its "in reality" component. I am going to delete it for now. Could you clearly explain what the point you are trying to make is? Of course it shouldn't be your point, but the point of the FRM!!!!Slp1 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the criticisms in this section that preceded the sentence that was removed, are variations of a defense of the best interests of the child standard. In my opinion, it is not necessary to reduce these criticisms to a single sentence such as "Critics respond to the proposals of the FRM by defending the best interest of the children standard", if the issues are included with some depth. I added some of these criticisms to the article myself, because I believe that the article is improved by including depth to this issue. Members of the FRM have responded to the defense of the best interests standard, and this is notable. Members of the FRM point out that "protections are preserved", and that fathers' rights are not in conflict with the best interests of children.

If the issues are included in this article with some depth, then I suggest that the attributed sentence that convey this idea remain in the article. If not, then I suggest that the criticisms in this section be reduced to a single sentence: "Critics respond to the shared parenting proposals made by members of the fathers' rights movement by defending the best interest of the children standard." Michael H 34 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I still don't think that this sentence in the context, but maybe I am missing something. Here the context I see...
Critiques are
  1. Money as a motive
  2. Problem of Power and violence issues
  3. a focus on "Rights" of Fathers rather the practical aspects and what the kids want and need.
The sentence about rebuttable presumption specifically responds to the issue raised in 2, which is why I like it there. I don't see that "They also criticize suggestions that shared custody, or fathers’ custody, puts the rights and interests of men before children, adding that children do best when there is a balance between mom and dad." responds to any issue here, and I'll be honest and say it seems like advocacy and trying to get the last word to me. Nobody is claiming that shared custody puts "rights and interests of men before children". Flood is claiming that FR activists emphasize rights etc in their rhetoric and pay less attention to the needs, wants and wishes of the children. I think the sentence is a non-sequitur, and a strawman, though I understand how it came about. --Slp1 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody is claiming that shared custody puts "rights and interests of men before children"."

I agree with Warren Farrell and I believe that this response to the criticism is notable. Also, it seems to me that the Critics "get the last word" in the every section. Michael H 34 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, Maybe I am being dense, but I still don't see how the sentence you want to add responds to the criticisms made. Notability isn't the issue. It is responding to a criticism that isn't there. And the point that FRA believe that kids do best in shared parenting situations, as already been made earlier in the paragraph. Slp1 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is responding to a criticism that isn't there."

I would never say that you are dense. I wouldn't say that Mr. Flood is dense, either. I read a communication by Mr. Flood in which he tried to make the statistics correlated with fatherlessness appear to be Marty Dart email statistics. He even used the imprecision of language in relation to math in order to cast doubt on the statistics.

How do you attempt to defeat a call for rights and equality? Make them "seem" to be at odds with the best interest of children.

I agree with your recent change. Shared parenting does not create rights, it is only a legal presumption. It was improper to do the work of M. Flood without at least including the response.

In my opinion, the name "Fathers' Rights Movement" is a misnomer since a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is in fact rebuttable, does not create rights, and is the major goal of the fathers' rights movement. (Yes, I agree that my opinion is not notable.)

I'm pleased to say that I've changed my mind about the name of the movement being a misnomer. However, I still feel very strongly that criticism congruent to members of the fathers' rights movement are more concerned about rights than...., does not belong in a section about shared parenting. Michael H 34 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes:

They also criticize suggestions that shared custody, or fathers’ custody, puts the rights and interests of men before children, adding that children do best when there is a balance between mom and dad.[1] Michael H 34 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] narrow the perspective please

The article is about the fathers' rights movement. Although critisism is often found in articles on contentious subjects involving politics, I've not seen one until now in which an opposition argument appears immediately after every comment explaining the POV related to the subject; i.e. this one says fathers say this ... immediately followed by a critisism over and over. It seems then that the article is not about the Fathers' Rights Movement, but a point-counter-point, he said - she said debate. The feminists are still dominating, even at Wikipedia. When I look up child support on Wikipedia for example, what I find is a propaganda piece supporting one side - no counter points at all. I don't see the feminism topic written in debate style either. Fine with me if this article contains comments on the side of critisism; but it would be better confined to a separate section and better still if the sources of critisism are clearly recognized for their fanaticism. Political campaigners, consultants paid to support a particular view, women's advocates, etc. I think it is also important to note that criticisms are not supported by facts, science, etc. It's just that Sue (or whoever) doesn't agree and wants something else. I understand the pressure to include opposing views, but in fact - really, they aren't necessary (just strongly desired by opponents who have their own websites and Wikipedia pages to express their own views). Rogerfgay 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including opposing POV is not necessary to write a NPOV article. Including the critics POV can enhance the article by giving depth to the issues, and I understand the challenge of writing an article that is easy to read and includes the issues in depth.

Shared parenting is a major issue. One of the major contentions of FRAs is that the creation of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is supported by most people and thwarted by critics' claims of widespread domestic violence by men. I believe that this is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Michael H 34 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Your comments about the organization are interesting, Rogerfgay, because what you are suggesting (with the criticisms at the end) was how the article was in the spring. It didn't work very well, in my opinion since it was so disjointed and repetitive, so various other versions have been tried by the editors here. I'm still not really satisfied either, but the article is of course a work in progress. I can't say I agree with your comments about the qualifications of the critics. I think if you look through the references you will find that there are advocates on both sides, consultants on both sides, campaigners on both sides, and that the academics (with the peer reviewed papers) are mostly (but not all) on the critique side.

Thanks for your helpful comments, about Shared Parenting, Michael. It helped me focus the rewriting of that section Slp1 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also really like your "Members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics disagree about the correlation..." edit. It makes the point very clearly and elegantly!Slp1 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for awhile, and it looks to me that the fathers' rights article is rambling even more than it did when I edited it. I don't agree with Roger Gay that feminists "are still dominating" Wikipedia (LOL!), or that this article would be perfectly okay without opposing views of the fathers' rights movement. This article only benefits with both sides of the fathers' rights issue. It's not controversial for nothing. It also is NOT accepted that shared parenting is supported by most people. I included edits that had shown that critics note how presumptive 50/50 shared parenting (what fathers rights activists want) does not benefit children or families across the divorce board. The edits that I had made in the spring supported this. The article is much different and much more long-winded now than it was in the spring. By the way, Michael, critics don't say that there is "widespread" domestic violence against men. They say that most domestic violence is committed by men. Big difference that was brought up in the comments in the spring. Seems those comments have been eliminated or watered down since springtime. Not good.

I'm not satisfied with this article at this point, either, not so much because the article is repetitive, but because it has devolved into advocacy, which violates Wiki's rules. This article DOES need voices from both or all sides. After all, the topic is controversial. Sadly, over the past few months, it has once again turned into an advocacy piece favoring fathers rights. I'm not sure how much time I will spend this time around trying to add information. I'll see how much free time I have.

I'll admit that I look forward to working with Sip and Michael again. It was enjoyable the first time with both of you.

Trish Wilson 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are "critisisms" in the article like:
Critics claim that fathers are mostly non-custodial parents, not as a result of actual court bias, but because most fathers do not want to be the primary custodial parent to their children,[47][48] and they also point to research suggesting that joint custody arrangements are good for children only if there is little parental conflict.[49] They also argue that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children.[47]
This kind of woman's point of view takes up more of that section than commentary on the FR POV. So this isn't really qualifying as an article presenting the FR movement. It's an article critisizing the FR movement. The two major US studies that I know of both provide solid evidence that the critisisms are nonsense. That reminds me - below I mention Sanford Bravers' book without checking to see whether its been cited - but the other book on the major US study on custody is: Custody Revolution: Father Custody and the Motherhood Mystique by Richard A. Warsh. Rogerfgay 10:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the section attributed to Merrilyn McDonald in the Domestic Violence/Child Abuse section. I also included information from a widely-cited Canadian study that shows that it is men who make most bona fide false allegations of abuse.

Trish Wilson 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed up the cites for now, but have some comments about all this that will have to wait for now since I don't have time now.Slp1 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments. Michael H 34 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: [[1]] Michael H 34 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hello all, It won't be a surprise that I think that for the article to be NPOV the critiques need to be added. The Fathers' rights and the movement are controversial, and there are a lot of very reliable sources for the criticism. It would be POV not to include them.
I am a bit disappointed that Trish thinks that the article has ballooned, since I have been great efforts in the last few days working on a few of the sections, and getting them down to size! Oh well, But I do agree that there has been additions and changes that have made the article less readable and less neutral, and as noted above, I think we should make a concerted effort to get this article up to snuff. But I would like to suggest some different ways of working.
  1. I don't think adding information is the answer, for two reasons. For example, Trish, the information you add is interesting but I think for readability article would be better with summaries and references, and cluttered up with statistics. I also think that it is Original Research and Synthesis because you have linked to the study to make the point. It is advocacy in the opposite direction! We need a someone criticizing the FRM and using that research to make the point. The specific problem of OR is rife in throughout the article, I fear.
  2. Roger made a good point about attribution. I think this article could stand having the comments attributed to sources much more directly. There is way too much "FRM this", and "critics that" when it is actually just one person and sometimes not a very notable person either. On the same subject also question why we are sourcing so much information about the FRM from individuals' blogs and websites. As I mentioned above to Michael we could source just about anything that way, (including some opinions we would all agree are pretty vile, I imagine). I think the sourcing would be much stronger if we source the objectives/aims etc to those of several reputable FR organizations rather than articles and commentaries.

Slp1 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An update on the above. I have just gone through the parental alienation section, and almost the whole thing is Original Research and synthesis. On both "sides". The cites are to original sources (the APA, judges manual, articles about PAS etc etc) that do not mention FR in any way). There are cites to websites about moving kids which mentions nothing about FAS or interference (which makes in synthesis) etc etc. I know I was the one who added some of these, so I am just realizing how far my understanding of WP sourcing policies has come since the spring. Slp1 02:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments. I learn from them. I removed and/or replaced OR from the FRM. I left the statements of the critics with the assumption that it will be sourced, replaced or removed. Michael H 34 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


[edit] Serious Scholarly Work

Stephen Baskerville's new book "Taken into Custody, The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" is now available. There is no doubt this is a master-work representing core issues of the fathers' rights movement. Baskerville is president of American Coalition of Fathers and Children, the largest fathers' rights organization in the world. Although ACFC is based in the US, Baskerville is not actually a native. He has been published quite often in Europe and the book provides an international perspective. This book should certainly be cited here - and I'm sure that his thesis can go a long way in helping to characterize the issues in a well organized way. If I can add a comment in support of what I've said above (about lack of credibility of opposition) - Baskerville makes clear a couple of points. There is no scientific evidence at all supporting the assumptions behind policies that FR groups complain about. He can move on without addressing the many counter-arguments that are presented in this Wikipedia article (and elsewhere). They have all been proven wrong. Another great reference - is Sanford Bravers' book "Diroved Dads: Shattering the Myths" based on the largest federally funded study of divorced fathers in the US (probably the world). Braver also points out that there is no scientific evidence in support of the assumptions underlying policies that FR groups complain about. Both point out that the evidence is squarely in favor of FR. Baskerville proceeds to deal more directly with the central issues involved in the contraversy, pointing out that all the myths have long since been disproven. He does not therefore need to go to any additional effort to counter claims that some people here are passing off as credible. Rogerfgay 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My short review of Baskerville's book (note editors at Wikipedia - "It isn't possible to understand")

It isn't possible to understand the real state of America today, or Western civilization for that matter, without understanding the problems that are so brilliantly described in this book. In the US, the two major parties collaborated on the most destructive domestic policy the nation has experienced in more than a century; knowing it was wrong. Politicians in other Western nations followed suit. Baskerville has spent more than a decade of intense effort investigating and writing about the war against fathers, marriage, and the family. He allows you to load much of the core result into your brain simply by reading this one well written book. Rogerfgay 09:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you liked the books ;-)It certainly sounds like these books would be a great reference and sourcing from it would solve many of the issues that I have of all the sourcing from webposts and blogs. I would like to make two points though...
number one this article is about the FRM, not really the place to argue the pros and cons of the issues they work on. Therefore these books might also be useful for the daughter articles about shared parenting, custody. etc.
Secondly, despite what Baskerville says, there are plenty of reputable scholars disagree with Baskerville about the 'scientific evidence", and comment on and criticise the movement on a number of levels, including from a more sociological perspective. One interesting book is "Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective" - editors Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon, (some of it is available through Google books, which is useful) and then of course there is Michael Flood and his various papers/articles/chapters.
I would like to remind editors that WP is not the place to try and promote your favourite views, no matter how convinced that you are of the righteousness of your opinion and the wrongheadness of the opposition. The goal here is to create an encyclopedia, containing well-written summary of all reliably-sourced, aspects of the subject from a Neutral Point of View. --Slp1 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is of course a lot of commentary that disagrees with results of the studies. I think anyone will have to at least read Baskerville before pronoucing his work less equal than the critisisms. The fact is - and I'm sure - the word "fact" is used correctly here - there are no credible studies supporting the myths about (propaganda against) fathers that motivated the policies that the fathers' rights movement exists to combat. Rogerfgay 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Providing an accurate and objective view of the fathers' rights movement should be the goal in writing this article. I find the opposing views woven into the article largely irrelevant. They have transformed the article into a debate on issues - an opportunity for opponents to show-case their favorite views. The point of including commentary on opposition to fathers' rights should be confined to a section on opposition to fathers' rights, where links can be included for people who want to learn more about opposition groups, etc. Regarding Stephen Baskervilles' new book: Baskerville is president of the largest fathers' rights organization in the world. His view represents a significant chunk of the views of the fathers' rights movement; regardless of the fact that opponents to fathers' rights will disagree. I think some people may have been making a fundamental error when thinking about the scope of the article - as if the goal is to prove or disprove the FR case. Rogerfgay 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that links to Glenn Sacks's website are a problem, especially considering that these articles have also been published in newspapers. Michael H 34 13:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I didn't say that they are a problem, just that it would be better to use more reliable (in WP terms), secondary level sources if they are available.--Slp1 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Background and history

Should include dramatic changes in family law and policy that gave rise to the movement, which did not exist 20 years ago. In the US, a critical date was December 1990 (with passage of federal laws during the 1980s and a history that goes back to 1975). December 1990 is the date federal reform of child support laws went into effect; which provided the basis of vast corruption and triggered an escalating war against fathers. Moving to the present day, it is commonly understood in the US at least, that the war against fathers was part of a more general war against marriage, which has since been transformed legally from a sacred constitutionally protected private issue to nothing more than an arbitrary government policy choice. Rogerfgay 09:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? It may well be in the Collier/Sheldon book since they have a chapter on FR in the US, but I haven't got there yet. --Slp1 12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I had heard nothing about the Collier/Sheldon book even though it's been in publication for more than a year. I read the description at Amazon.com - at least that makes it look like it might be something. In answer to your question, during 17 years study, research and commentary related to fathers' rights, I've commented on and testified about family law reform in three countries (and studied more). I can dig up specific references when I have time. But while you wait, you might want to have a look at the link below under Phases of the fathers' rights movement. I've written that primarily for a US audiences. Around 1990, child support laws changed dramatically in several countries - those that developed the major elements of the fathers' rights movement. Public discussion - including reaction by the "mainstream media" played out differently in different countries. I know that in both Europe and Australia, more articles were published recognizing the problems the news laws created - while in the US - just an overwhelming propaganda campaign. It might be interesting to know - while in many English speaking countries things were getting dramatically worse, they were not in non-English speaking countries. In fact, in Sweden, fathers' rights were being improved. Rogerfgay 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"...in which fathers have become the 'new victims' of family law."

I find this phrase meaningless and confusing. I don't understand the term 'new victims.' Who are the old victims? Has family law victimized others or are they the new victim creators? Why is this term used? Does it help the article? I don't think that I'm the only one who doesn't get it. Michael H 34 03:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


Here's the problem: "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" -- There is no evidence of "old victims" or that laws once favored fathers. The sources do not say that was the case, or even claim that this is the view expressed by "such groups" .. i.e. fathers' rights groups. They only mention the feminist argument in opposition to fathers' rights; that feminists describe men's and fathers' rights as a "backlash" to the success of feminism (and want that success to be perceived as having achieved equality). This is the short summary argument that should be given in a short separate section on opposition to fathers' rights. It is not an accurate characterization of the fathers' rights movement, and certainly this opposition argument by feminists is not what fathers' rights groups suggest. It's part of the evidence that there has been too much COI involvement from opponents to fathers' rights in this article. Presenting the opposition view of fathers' rights is not neutral. Rogerfgay 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This phraseology is used several times in the Sheldon and Collier book. I list some below:
Page 1 "Fathers, it is sometimes said, have become the new victims of legal systems that have moved too far in favour of mothers. Groups claiming to represent the interests of fathers have mobilized in a number of countries to protest against such changes."
Page 54 "Fathers, for some, have become the 'new victims' of a range of laws relating to the family with have moved 'too far' in favour of mothers. This chapter will explore these claims...."
Page 56 "A complex convergence of developments has, not least in the context of post-divorce/separation parenting, served to reposition men in the popular consciousness as the new victims of family law reform."
Page 62-65 A whole section entitled "Are Fathers Really the "New Victims" of Contact Law?
Page 74 "And just as the suffering of men who are fathers is revealed and made visible, other hitherto (good) 'family men" are repositioned within this discourse as the (potential) victims of the injustice(s) of law."
And from the Collier and Sheldon Guardian article "Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims. Protesters demand a redressing of the balance through reform of child support law, changes to contact rights, and a presumption that children will spend equal time at the home of each parent following separation."
I think the sentence is well-sourced from reliable sources. Based on this, I don't think your statement "The sources do not say that was the case, or even claim that this is the view expressed by "such groups" .. i.e. fathers' rights groups." is accurate. Your own comments appear to be your personal opinion and original research. Please back them up with some sources.--Slp1 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing the movement as a social movement should also be in the section on opposition. There is no doubt that the core of all this in the US is a civil rights struggle. Fathers' rights advocates and individuals who battle the system overwhelmingly point to civil rights problems. The characterization of the issues as social verses civil issues has a concrete meaning in US law (which I suspect originated in British common law). Characterizing the issues as social (rather than civil) has the concrete legal meaning that fathers have no basic rights to defend. The issues as social issues are purely political; i.e. arbitrarily decided as policy decisions; nothing more fundamental is at stake. It can also be interpreted as meaning that there are no government policy issues involved; i.e. that fathers' rights groups are struggling to get the concept of fatherhood or their special pov on fatherhood accepted, or something or other in that vein. You'd have to ask the people who insist on characterizing it that way, what they mean by it. From a concrete factualy pov, it makes no sense to me. Rogerfgay 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"Social Movement" is well-sourced. Please note again that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth" (from WP:V). Find some reliable sources for "civil rights movement" and all will be well. The same goes for "human rights movement" which is what Michael prefers,(see below) but neither of you has been able to come with anything else other than opinion and original research to support your preferences.Slp1 13:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Transformation

This comment refers most concretely to a major transformation of family policy in the US; but I am quite convinced that the quality of family policy in other countries that adapted the new US model was also directly effected. I mention the legal transformation of marriage above (Background and history). In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993), a federal appellate court declared that family policy in the US is catagorized as "social policy." In general discussion, and some other countries, this may seem like a basic and perhaps uninteresting observation. Under US law however, it was a critical transformation. "Social policy" (also economic policy) is an area of law based entirely on arbitrary policy choice. Examples include how much people on public support are entitled to receive and the level of taxes one is required to pay. Regardless of whether you think your own country's policies are completely arbitrary, there is no constitutionally defined right for an individual to challenge these decisions - other than through voting for someone you agree with. This was a fundamental change from its former status: family being seen as basic to human existence and sacred private ground. Prior to the ruling, courts agreed that family rights are among the most basic, and that parental rights are always more important than a state's desire to intrude. Had it not been for this reclassification of family law, courts would have been forced by constitutional rulings toward even handed treatment of parents. Because of the reclassification, courts were pushed rapidly and dramtically away from that principle. Rogerfgay 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I welcome your help on this article. The article has come a long way, but I believe that there is more to add, especially about the background and history. Michael H 34 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


"In 2004, the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court declared that marriage was no longer an institution in that state." I just read this in a comment at Amazon.com on Stephen Baskerville's new book. I have no citation for it, but believe it's true. By 2004, it was already an accurate statement; not a new idea being introduced by the Michigan court. The phrasing - no longer an "institution" is one I am familiar with. It means that it is no longer on the constitutionally protected ground that it once was, as I explained above. Rogerfgay 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The other side of the story

The father's rights movement arose in response to government policy - not as a collective way to address arguments presented by mothers in court. The critisisms presented are not only too many, they miss the point entirely. The other side of the fathers' right argument has to do with government funding and policy - and especially the mistaken belief that getting tough on fathers would reduce dependency on the public support system. (Yes - this idea has already proven itself to have been wrong. We're not at the beginnging of a debate on a new idea - enough years have passed with the reforms in place that we now know that they don't work and why.) Rogerfgay 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this analysis or is it your own? --Slp1 12:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Echoing Slp1's call I need to ask can you verify this using reliable sources?--Cailil talk 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's not a high priority for me right now to do this work separately from the writing I've already done on the subject. I am particularly concerned at this point about "being my own source." I haven't edited the article myself. I'm an expert. I'm not a blogger (even though there's nothing wrong with that.) My articles are an external source. Few people in the world have done as much research and writing about child support as I have. In my area of specialization, you won't find a better source. Rogerfgay 10:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/CS_Project/index.htm and particularly the long article near the bottom on child support principles. As I recall, there are a great many references to the history of changes in child support law. The much shorter article, A Further Look at Child Support Guidelines also has key citations and may be a better place to start. As you will see from the page I've given, child support is my area of specialization. My core work was on analysis and developing child support decision theory. I don't mean having an alternative idea and calling it "theory," although I realize that child support has been overly politisized and it is easy to think that in the context of discussion on the fathers' rights movement. My theory has been validated scientifically and refered to in academic work as scientifically unchallenged. This work helped provide me with a much more concrete understanding of the distinctions between right and wrong in this matter. I will certainly try to help people here when I have the time, without trying to be a dictator. But I hope people will understand if I sometimes appear to be a bit stubborn. I've spent all the time and effort required to know some of the right answers to things commonly debated. Rogerfgay 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
More sources: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/index.htm If you want to do a more thurough job in the area of child support, you can take the time to read many of the articles I've written, starting at the bottom of the list (a republished article that was first published in 1995). Not all of my articles are on child support. Those that are still about fathers' rights might also be of interest. You'll find that many of my articles contain citations - i.e. are well documented. Whether citations are to government documents, court cases, laws, other commentary, etc. depends on what the subject of the article is. Of course, there is some commentary that does not contain citations. Even those can provide a clearer understanding of the causes and character of the fathers' rights movement. Rogerfgay

Another article on a court decision - refusal to recognize man ordered to pay child support was not the father. http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay092904.htm The article explains what the court decision says, and provides citation to the decision itself. The decision is very long and as the article explains, will be confusing to many. The important point, for supportive documentation on the core cause of the fathers' rights movement is at the end of the article, which quotes the decision directly. Rogerfgay 08:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. So far, I've only spent a few minutes reading and scanning a few documents.

I suggest that the following notable phrase be included in the article in the section on shared parenting in response to questions about financial motives for support of shared parenting by the members of the FRM.

",while members of the fathers' rights movement conclude that parental incentives to argue for more parenting time in order to gain financially, would not be realized under some child support guidelines." [2] Michael H 34 14:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I suggest that the following phrase could be added to the section on child support after the words "financial incentive to divorce": "and a financial incentive for women to conceive children with more than one man" I ask other editors to suggest what they believe might be the most appropriate citation to support this phrase. Michael H 34 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

We haven't heard from anyone on the Reliable sources board yet, but I am very dubious that some of these websites e.g mensnewsdaily qualify as reliable sources, with the required editorial oversight etc. Roger`s position as an expert has been bandied about here, but I think it needs to be clarified first whether he meets the bar in WP terms so that we can use self-published resources such as the link above and the one that you mention below. To be honest I find it a bit surprising and disappointing that an expert had never even heard of the book above, let alone read it, when I, who am not even interested in this topic, could find it so easily. But my surprise is not the point, we have policies to help figure this out. The exact quote from WP:V is "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: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Has Roger published a book on the Father's rights movement? Has he written articles about it that have been published in peer reviewed journals? Has he written articles that have been published in mainstream press? These need to be clarified before we can use him as an expert as a source in this or other articles. Please note that the same thing applies to Trish Wilson, who writes from a very different perspective. We would need to see evidence that third party publications see her as an expert before we could use her material within any of these articles. It is clear to me that Baskerville, Flood, Farrell etc, meet the bar in this regard. I would also like to say that I think that Roger's approach of merely commenting on the talkpages is much appreciated and highly appropriate.
I also think, Michael, that you are trying to write this article backwards. We don't think of a point and then look for citations. That's what people do if they are trying to prove a point and advocate a position. We read reliable sources (these shouldn't be blogs and websites in the main) and see what they have as main points and summarize them in the article. --Slp1 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the critisism. The article is about the Fathers' Rights Movement. The movement itself is responsible for providing a POV. It does not make any sense to me at all, trying to write an article about the FRM that is devoid of FRM POV. I particularly find it perplexing that MensNewsDaily is thought to be an inappropriate source; for representing an FR perspective? Rogerfgay 11:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(moved from previous position to clarify who has written what}

Thank you. And BTW: I am not self published. Well - I do have some things at my own web-site. Those are self-published. My articles have appeared in MensNewsDaily (which is not self-published), a variety of e-zines, legal information and commentary sites, and print publications including peer-reviewed journals. In addition, my work has been cited by academic work. Aside from not listing by editing the article myself, a hundred or so of my articles pass as not being self-published. And also; many of my articles, at MND and elsewhere (even the ones on my own website that are self-published) contain many authoritative references (authoritative outside references such as Wikipedia would demand). If you look through them all, I'm sure you'll find a great many very accurate statements of fact. On a more personal note; I do not think my core identity and purpose as a researcher and scientist should be overlooked, nor the tremendous effort I put into any of my articles to do the research and get the facts right. The effort I made in my articles to get it right has been on average much better than Wikipedia. I don't mean that as a slam against Wikipedia. I mean that I worked very hard to report accurately and provide commentary that accurately and reliably described whatever background, issue, or problem I was commenting on. My opinions could clearly be understood as my opinions, while facts were represented as facts. Rogerfgay 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Award winning NPOV. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of a fathers' rights group. I wrote as journalist and commentator for the world's leading publication that deals with men's / fathers' issues as well as other political issues. Not all of my articles were about men's and fathers' rights; but vary to include international news stories, analysis and commentary on other issues (such as the EU constitution), and science / technology - especially artificial intelligence and robotics. Articles written about child support were / are backed by significant scientific study and research, including contributions to child support decision theory that are cited. My articles have had an impact on national discussion and are considered quite relevant in Fathers' / Childrens' / Family rights. In 2002, I was recipient of a Seventh Annual Award from New Jersey Council for Children's Rights for "impact on child support policies, and for superior journalism." Rogerfgay 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I have refactored your comments. It is better not to respond in the middle of somebody's post because it makes it difficult to understand who has written what.
Wikipedia has strict policies about Verifiability, No original research and guidelines about what is considered a reliable source. These non-negotiable policies and guidelines have been developed over time by consensus in order to facilitate the writing of an encyclopedia of neutral point of view. If you are interested you can read more about the origins and reasons for the policies at [3].
Intriguingly, you will note that on Wikipedia the "threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth". In this specific case, the rules on original research and reliable sources help us avoid the problem of figuring out exactly whose FRM we will describe: is it the "truths" of the masked BlackShirts of Australia [4], or those of what Sacks called "the lunatic fringe" or those of Families Need Fathers, or ACFC or those promoted on MND or what? We have to go with verifiable information provided by reliable sources (see below), and if that rules out the Blackshirts website and MensNewsDaily alike then so be it. There are plenty of other reliable sources to use. I also sense a misunderstanding here,and forgive me if I have misunderstood: this is not the place for the FRM to define itself. That is what the various FRM websites and blogs are for.
Now to the question of your status. I think there is no dispute that you have researched and written extensively on the subject of child support issues, and noone is trying to question the dedication, hardwork and integrity you have put into this work. However, it seems your definition of self-published is different from WP's. According to WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." Does MND have system of editorial oversight with systematic fact-checking of articles they post? I doubt it, judging by speed with which articles get posted there, and I can find no information about an editorial department. However, it is not up to me to decide: I have asked the specific question at [5] and at the moment the opinion appears to be that MND is not a reliable source for WP purposes. However, if you can be classified as an expert for WP purposes then this may be moot, since self-published material from an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" can be used to a limited extent. The things that concerns me is that most of the qualifications you list above are not relevant to being deemed an "established expert in the topic of the article". However, some articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of fathers' rights would fit the bill nicely though. Can you provide the details of these? --Slp1 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need reliable, verifiable sources. I have not added information based on Roger's citations and await the Reliable sources board review. Also, I have not added Phyllis Schlafly's question: "How can it be in the best interest of children to take away one of their parents?" to the article and I await your consideration of its acceptability. Ms. Schlafly gave a keynote address at a recent ACFC meeting.

I suggest that the article is improved by making the debate as robust as possible, but as easy to read as possible. I have added criticisms to the article, and I prefer that the criticisms not be consolidated in one section.

Michael H 34 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Just as an aside: Reliance on peer reviewed journals is not perfect - even in physics: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael H 34 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. As you know, the same question about expert status applies to Schlafly, and at some point we need to make decisions about other citations in the article that may fall afoul of this. BTW, interestingly enough, I believe it was partly Bogdanov affair influenced to policy changes verifiability, original research, sourcing, NPOV, criteria for expertise etc for WP. The brothers and their fans used WP as a means of advocate their theories and silence the criticisms of others. The arbitration case makes interesting reading: it ended with the POV editors being banned, though apparently attempts are still made to vandalise the article. Slp1 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay on the inclusion of the Schlafly question also. Let it be so! Let the arguments be robust and strongly stated with attribution for all!

What I also found interesting was that John Baez referenced the Bogdanov Wikipedia article and declared it to be good, without any apparent concern that the article may at some point in the future be completely revamped. I tend to share his unstated confidence that Wikipedia articles tend to get better and not worse. However, I did once read comments in the discussion page of an article where one person, who had dedicated time and energy to the article and who was about to move on to other things, noted that another person had just (carelessly) edited the article to change a convention of terminology. I think of this article and its future, and wonder about the shark that ate all human knowledge contained in the only hand-held computer programmed with a perfected encyclopedia, from Galápagos, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Que sera sera! Michael H 34 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

(edit conflict)

Notes on Individual Interests vs. State Interests:

[6] Illinois State Senator Beverly Fawell clearly indicated that an Illinois Law was written to honor paternity challenges supported by a DNA test and she included an example in which a father was in the army and not able to challenge paternity. However, by stating that "voluntary" acceptance of paternity was not discussed by the Illinois legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court felt it okay to pretend that Sen. Fawell's words did not exist. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the application of the plaintiff to have his DNA test honored. They concluded that he voluntarily accepted paternity because he did not challenge paternity within the 60-day time period mandated by Title IV-D, and they did so because they did not want to lose millions in matching funds from the federal government for the state of Illinois. Michael H 34 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Phases of the fathers' rights movement

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/14/phases-of-the-fathers%e2%80%99-rights-movement/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a great example of why blogs and websites are frowned upon as sources. People can write their own sources! A new one on me.--Slp1 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as a great example of ... etc. The WP article needs to get properly focused and have a sense of background and history. Others who are knowledgable about the FR movement may want to tweak what's said in the suggested source article (which in the first lines characterizes itself, quite objectively, as an "initial draft outline." But it should be considered at least good study material for people who are interested in working on the WP article. The author finished a first pilot study on an FR related issue in 1990, first testified before congress on the issue in 1992, first conference presentation on an FR related issue in 1992, and has personally observed the growth and development of the FR movement since around the time of its birth. The source is extremely credible. Rogerfgay 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
post-hoc correction to clarify what has been discussed above. Blogs and websites are not acceptable as sources per WP:SPS, except as sources about themselves, and subject to restrictions per WP:SELFPUB--Slp1 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger, I based one of the sentences that I added to the Fathers' Rights Movement in the USA article on one of your articles:

A member of the fathers' rights movement has stated that a reliance on the judiciary in the United States as the branch of government empowered to protect individual Constitutional rights and liberties, and the failure of courts to protect fathers' rights, has left fathers in the United States without the benefit of the checks and balances which have evolved in socialist countries with more open, pluralistic governments such as Sweden.[2]

[edit] A sense of the motivation of the movement

Here's an article that I think does a particularly good job in providing a sense of motivation for the movement, perhaps moreso in the US but maybe not.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2005/gay062305.htm

In order to get it, you need to step back from it after reading it and think in general human terms - empathize - get the point of human suffering regardless of your personal feelings about the man's POV on well, whether or not you're a Christian, for example. The struggle has everything to do with individual rights and the relationship between the individual and the state. 17 years with this issue, and I'm left with no doubt at all - that's what it's about. If you're looking elsewhere - especially in the direction of he-said, she-said arguments that need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, you're looking in the wrong direction. No fathers' rights movement existed back when individual decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. For example, getting trapped in debates about whether joint custody or sole custody is best for children won't yield any answers. I'm confident that generally joint custody is best (backed by the longest longitudinal study on the subject ever performed - see reference to Warsak). But we all know that joint custody is not always the best answer in all cases. Opponents will endlessly argue with reference to situations or results that are undesirable so that such a debate will never end if you're looking for one best answer for all cases - a policy choice rather than court decision. Beating those arguments to death as though they provide additional credibility to the WP article is nonsense. In the US (and elsewhere) the issues became overly politisized and the decisions have shifted from courts to legislatures - where they don't belong. Legislatures who "err on the side of caution" (even if not guided by more sinister and corrupt motives) are deciding incorrectly in most cases. Most of the issues are fundamentally not political issues, and are improperly treated as such. Since they are treated as political issues, and decided as a matter of policy rather than circumstance - even this very simple and easy to understand analysis shows that the problem is with the relationship between the individual and the state. Rogerfgay 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article used to say that the movement was related to populism... and that was it (except for one phrase in the section on shared parenting.

In my opinion this one phrase is taking the place of Phyllis Schlafly's question, "How can it be in the best interest of children to take away one of their parents?"
I say only as a novice and only as an aside, that while Wikipedia is not supposed to be persuasive of anything, it is also not supposed to avoid the perception of persuasion. (I think that one of the Wiki rules is to Ignore All Rules.)

I am agreeable to leaving the criticism where it is currently located. I suggest that a sentence communicating the idea that members of the fathers' rights movement and (some?) critics agree that shared parenting is beneficial in some situations and not appropriate in others.

The article has come a long way largely as a result of the strong efforts and skills of Slp1. If the article had not come so far, then in my opinion, an expert like Roger would not have offered to help.

The article no longer includes the statement about the relation of the fathers' rights movement to populism. I suggest that we add a section under the main issues appropriately labeled in order to improve the article. Michael H 34 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I may be unfamiliar enough with the background on considering Phyllis Schlafly's comments so maybe this will make sense - or not. At this point, Phyllis Schlafly is regarded more of a supporter of fathers' rights and the fathers' rights movement than she once was. (This is in response to Michael's response that seems to characterize Phyllis Schlafly's remarks as critisism? If I interpreted correctly or anywhere in the general vicinity of correctly?) I had contact with Phyllis Schlafly years ago, and there is no doubt that she did not immediately become a supporter of the fathers' rights movement. She had nothing against fathers and was not an opponent. In the early days of the movement, before social conservatives realized the true character of the problem, she did not see the fathers' rights cause as part of her battle. She does now. Rogerfgay 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the early days of the movement, before social conservatives realized the true character of the problem, she did not see the fathers' rights cause as part of her battle. She does now."

I agree. Ms. Schlafly said this in her keynote address at a recent ACFC meeting. Her question: How can it be in the best interest of children to take away one of their parents? is a challenge to the current best-interest standard and a call for support of shared parenting. Michael H 34 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's a link to the video: [[7]] Michael H 34 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


[edit] Recent edits

Michael, please read carefully the following from the Guardian article (whose citation you deleted in your revert) "Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims.". It exactly makes the claim that you are denying in your reverts, as does the book itself on several occasions. Please restore it. I will not engage in a revert war over this. --Slp1 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence as it stood this morning is unacceptable, unless someone connected "they tend to focus..." with "establishing men or fathers as the new victims...." Michael H 34 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I reverted, but I had to rework this section. Collier's assertion that "they tend to focus... for their members, divorced or divorcing men," may be true of some particular fathers' rights group, but the statement is misleading and contrary to "not just a men's movement." Collier's statement should not be included in the article. Michael H 34 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You did a great job with your reworking. I have replaced the sentence you deleted, however. The composition of the group and what they focus on are two different things, but maybe we could add "mainly" to address your concerns. The quote is well-sourced, so shouldn't be deleted without discussion here and also an interesting point. S and C note the very narrow focus of the FRM, and ask why the fathers' rights movement doesn't work on other fathers' rights issues... eg. refugee men to be reunited with their wives and children through faster family reunification, gay men's parenting issues etc.--Slp1 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The fathers' rights movement is not just about men.

"In case anybody has any doubts on my position on this, I’m 100% with Missy Wheeler, who deserves the chance to share in parenting her child. I hope the courts take a tough stand against Sara Wheeler’s selfishness and vindictiveness, and enforce Missy’s parenting rights and parenting time." [8]

Michael H 34 14:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Concerning family reunification, Glenn Sacks has campaigned to reunite refugee fathers with children. The following example was posted today. [9] Michael H 34 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

More evidence. Fathers & Families founder Ned Holstein writes an amicus brief about the value of breadwinning and caretaking in support of a lesbian social mother. [10] Michael H 34 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34 Citation (FRAs campaign for lesbian social mothers.) Rutland Herald and others: [11] Michael H 34 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34 (fix typo) Michael H 34 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


The sentence in question doesn't say that the movement is all about men. It says that the issues the FRM focuses quite narrowly on issues of interest to divorcing/divorced men, and the citations you provide just bolster the S and C's case as they are about custody issues, access etc. Incidentally the second case isn't about a refugee at all, and isn't the kind of family reunification I am talking about. See [12] and [13] for more details. I would be very pleasantly surprised to know that fathers' rights groups were working in this area of refugee rights, but I haven't seen any sign of it to date. In any case, as you know the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (see WP:V. To my mind, S and C are one of the most reliable sources we have, and the sentence about "narrow focus" is certainly verifiable.Slp1 16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I politely suggest that the issue of the Cuban father is about family reunification and that the additional conditions of refugee men reuniting with wives and children results from Collier and Boyd's narrow focus! I note your points about verifiability and truth, and I accept your statement that Collier and Boyd are a reliable source. At least the sentence includes the word "tend" and I thank you for adding the word "mainly."

The article may be improved by including another section titled Individual Rights versus States' Interests and Inequalities in Law. I need to find a reliable source. At this point, however, I've decided to take a break. Michael H 34 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

My quote from above: "isn't the kind of family reunification I am talking about". Yes, the Cuban father issue is about a kind of "family reunification". Another kind is reuniting families who are separated for long periods by government immigration and refugee policies. This second is the kind of reunification that I (and Sheldon and Collier) are talking about, and which the FRM doesn't work on at all, apparently.Slp1 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could be the result of limited budgets. I noticed that a statement by Richard Collier was referenced in a citation by Miranda Kaye. I did not understand the quoted statement, and so I wasn't able to form a tentative opinion concerning his point of view. I misremembered the other author's name; Sally Sheldon is the coauthor, not Susan Boyd. Michael H 34 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
Limited budgets... well, that's one way of looking at it, though I don't think posting on FR websites/blogs about these issues would be that costly. I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that members of the FRM are "narrowly focussed" on custody/divorce/etc etc which affect them personally, and are not interested (and possibly actually ideologically opposed to) to gay men's parenting, and immigration/refugees. After all there is a strong element of conservatism (political, social and religious) which seems to underly at least some parts of the movement.--Slp1 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some are conservative. Some are liberal. Some may lose their attachment to prior views and beliefs once held strongly, after they join the fathers' rights movement. The article includes the word diverse, and I believe that to be accurate.

With regard to religion, I would say that members of the FRM are opposed to the actions of judges and social workers who order a father to not talk about religion with his children, regardless of what that religion happened to be. Michael H 34 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Challenge to Sentence in Movement's Activities

"Critics of the fathers' rights group state that its members "cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems...."

From the link:

In recent years, these different perceptions have been given voice through the emergence of a number of grass-roots fathers’ or mothers’ pressure groups that have, to borrow Coltrane and Hickman’s (1992: 400) phrase, sought to cast “personal troubles as pressing social problems”. Based on USA experience, Coltrane and Hickman suggest that fathers’ groups typically portray “men as victims of vindictive wives and sexist courts” (p. 407), while mothers’ groups commonly portray “women and children as victims of abusive husbands and biased courts” (p. 408). Both groups, suggest Coltrane and Hickman, draw on “horror stories” to support their claims: mothers’ groups tell of disinterested “deadbeat dads” dodging child support liabilities, while fathers’ groups tell stories of responsible (but “dead broke”) fathers being denied contact with children by “extortionist wives” (p. 410-411). Some pressure groups in Australia make similar claims – as evidenced in a number of submissions to the recent parliamentary inquiry.

I may be wrong, but based on the citation I suggest that it is OR to state that Coltrane and Hickman are critics of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Its not original research but it might be a type of weasel wording to describe them as critics of father's rights. A better wording would be "Sociologists Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman state that members of fathers' rights groups "cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems...."--Cailil talk 13:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sociologists Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman state that members of fathers' rights groups "cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems....' would have been better, but begs the type of question described in weasel wording: Who are Coltrane and Hickman and why is their view important? However, the edit beginning: "Sociologists, such as Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman...." is OR, because there is no evidence that Coltrane and Hickman are not the only two with this view. IMO, the sentence is criticism for the sake of criticism and adds nothing to the article about the issues or about the movements' activities that is not already included. Michael H 34 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34 Michael H 34 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Micheal H 34

I tend to agree with your "such as" comments and will boldly change it. Also reword a few other things to preserve the flow.--Slp1 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The edited sentence is acceptable to me. Michael H 34 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34 I made a couple of suggested changes. Michael H 34 01:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Notes on violence

I see no evidence that Chalmers was a member of the fathers' rights movement.

St. Louis Man Kills 4, Self Over Child Support Dispute

According to the article 'If it was a mistake, it cost the lives of my family' (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4/22/06): [14] Michael H 34 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Outside Sources Problem

I am sure that editors will have a problem with outside sources if they are overly limiting on their ideas about what qualifies as an "outside" source. From its beginning (which I put at around 1990) fathers have been plagued by a well coordinated and highly effective anti-father propaganda campaign. Every person who critisized government policy aimed against fathers has been labled as a fathers' rights activist - which while literally accurate should not be used to berate the credibility of a source. The point of the campaign was to fire up emotions against fathers and provide the appearence of a credibility problem for anyone who critisized. For quite some time, the only people providing any reasonable perspective on fathers rights were those willing to fight a battle for fathers' rights - because any suggestion in favor of fathers would be met with a fight. Going too far from the FRM and its spokesman will typically drop off a cliff as far as credibility is concerned. Anti-father positions, even those that attempt to explain anti-father policy in a nice, neutral sounding way, are not objective. Rogerfgay 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child Support

If editors here have special expertise in subjects related to fathers' rights, I think you might want to know that I've challenged the neutrality of the Wikipedia article on Child_support. My reason is explained on the topic's talk page, where I have also posted and explained reason for a move template. Rogerfgay 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to Defeat Shared Parenting

Notes:

"They claim that a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is supported by a majority of citizens,..."

The following phrase was removed per ruling of Reliable Sources board:

and that their proposals to pass such laws have been defeated by their opponents' portrayals of fathers as a threat to their children's well-being.[3]

Here's a second citation:

NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

"It has issued numerous warnings, including one that says fathers' groups seeking joint custody laws are “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” In their statements the words “husband” and “father” are generally preceded by the word “abusive.” "

"Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states this year, including New York and Michigan. "

"This article appeared in the New York Daily News (7/27/06), the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/7/06) and others."

[15]

This article appears on the ACFC website as well: [16] Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of ACFC.


If it's inaccurate or could be improved, please let me know. Michael H 34 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't see anything wrong with your statement. If the article was about the differences between the liberal foundation of the US system (Bill of Rights, etc.) verses Swedish democracy I would have more to say. But that's not what the article is about. Rogerfgay 10:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloggers as sources

There is a comment above that incorrectly identifies a potential source article as a blog. It got me to thinking though. My comment here is about the fact that WP frowns on bloggers as sources. I understand why generally blogs may not be regarded as credible sources (even though some are written by experts who have a great deal of credibility among readers, while certainly some are incredible and even nonsense (sort of like any source under such general scrutiny as blog, TV, newspapers, magazines, movies ...)). The point I want to make here is that general rejection of blog commentaries (even though I'm not a blogger) may be inappropriate in relation to this article. I think this is tied to problems in appropriately defining the article's scope. If you run across a central figure in the FR movement who regularly writes a blog - then certainly it is quite possible that comments in the blog may in some way accurately represent the views of the FR movement. By definition, the views expressed by someone central to the FR movement - regardless of venue - provide a credible representation of the views of the FR movement. The question is not whether you agree or disagree with the views expresssed in the blog, whether you think blogs should always be considered less credible than Jayson Bryce at the NY Times, or whether you think an FR activist can or cannot be trusted. The only question that is relevant is whether the blog commentary represents the views of the FR movement. If it does, it would be a very credible reference tied to a description of the FR movement. In fact, this easily goes beyond central figures in the movement. Whether or not the writer is close to and knowledgable about the FR movement is a more important consideration than whether a publication is online or not. Rogerfgay 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully you will see that I didn't actually identify a potential source article as a blog.:-) But on your main point, luckily we don't need to reinvent the wheel on this one, since there are policies already in place. See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. In summary, as you seem to suggest, under certain limits websites and blogs are acceptable, which is why those of Sacks, Farrell, Baskerville etc have been used here. The critical features here are that the websites have to be by established experts, (and note how the policy strictly defines proving that someone is 'expert'), and information from them can be used in articles about themselves provided that is not contentious; is not unduly self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. I have asked for the input on others about how to interpret these policies in this particular case at [17] --Slp1 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to help out, and this is not the first time I've worked on a WP article. I think I've been through much of the initial hard learning and adaptation. I have also been writing and editing for many years - nonfiction - typically lots of references, necessity in objectivity, etc. Re: being an expert, I have literally appeared as an "expert" witness, testified before congress, written extensively on the subject, been published by people who regard me as an expert, cited in academic work, presented at conferences, have been an observer since the time I believe the movement was born .... but since my work - at least in one small area - may be one of the most authoritative on the subject; I'm not writing or editing the WP article (unless maybe if it's in an area outside my specialization). I'll suggest, but leave it to other editors to decide. Rogerfgay 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes: CHILD SUPPORT STATUTES AND THE FATHER’S RIGHT NOT TO PROCREATE [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael H 34 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)