Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias against fathers

Is the 70% statistic being used to support criticism of shared parenting?

Since the 70% statistic is included in the section on shared parenting, I think that it is not incorrect to mention that the 70% statistic is being used as criticism of shared parenting in the section on Bias against fathers.

Michael H 34 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that repetition is not desirable. --Slp1 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the 70% statistic as criticism of shared parenting currently appears twice. I propose that it remain in the section on bias against fathers. If the 70% statistic is removed from the Shared Parenting section, then I agree that it is appropriate to remove the statement that the 70% statistic is being used as criticism of shared parenting in the section on Bias against fathers.

I'll remove both occurrences of the 70% statistic as criticism of shared parenting. Please revert and make changes as you feel appropriate. Michael H 34 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Child support

You guys have been busy in the article today. Congratulations!! I am still swamped, but before you do any more, here is my comment about the new Child support section. I think it has drifted into advocacy: this is not the place for pointing forward points for and against, but pointing out FRA's attitudes towards the topic. Maybe it should go in the Child Custody article? That or rewording is necessary, I think. Ditto for criticism --Slp1 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the entire article is turning into advocacy, especially the Intro and the Bias Against Fathers sections. Child Support, too. I'm not going to add anything else for the time being. I do feel that I need to address what is being written, though. I don't feel comfortable deleting activist-oriented stuff that I didn't write, and make sure the article is a description of FRA attitudes, and what the critics have to say about that. I'm just not sure how to go about it at this point. I think that some of the stuff in the Criticism section can be added to another section called something like "Harassing Behavior By Fathers' Rights Groups". I think that was a header in the past.

Trish Wilson 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you are possibly not the best person to do any pruning required! I am willing to try to do the job once people have added whatever major points they feel important. I know virtually nothing about the topic so can't participate with this easily. Once I am free of a bunch of "real work" I have to do, I will try and condense things, with the goal of preserving the meaning of everybody's points while cutting out some of the unnecessary detail. How does that sound? --Slp1 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.

I added attribution to the statements of Amneus, which are needed if these statements remain. His views are extreme among members of the fathers' rights movement and are not appropriate for the section on shared parenting, since he supports automatic father custody.

If the current section on Child Support is misleading because Amneus's views are extreme, then please feel free to eliminate, reword and/or edit. I think that William Farrell's viewpoint is more representative of most members of the fathers' rights movement, since I believe that the elimination of child support is not part of the fathers' rights groups' agenda.

Many members of the fathers' rights movement prefer that child support be based on the cost of raising the children.

I have not found a cite in which criticism is expressed of child support designs in which greater child support is generally provided to women who have children with more than one man as compared to women who have children with one man.

I think that including a subsection of Criticism titled "Harrassing behavior by members of fathers' rights groups" is okay.

Michael H 34 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I made two minor edits just now. Michael H, he's "Warren Farrell", not "William Farrell". I fixed that for you. I also divided up the "Criticism" section because it is way too long.

I don't have much more to add to the text at this time. I know which sections are activism and POV, including stuff I wrote, but I'll wait until you yank and condense things, Slp1. I figure in time I'll be able to do that kind of editing myself. I'm still learning the ropes.

Trish Wilson 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting Warren Farrell's name. Michael H 34 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0915wilson.html Michael H 34 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/csde/publications/brito_05.pdf Michael H 34 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Critics point out that noncustodial fathers pay only 19% of their incomes toward their children's household incomes. In 2003, custodial parents were owed an average of $5,100 in child support. They received on average about $3,000.

I don't understand why these sentences are included. Michael H 34 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Starting

I thought I would start with something easy and short,Parental Alienation. Not as easy as I thought! It bodes ill!
Two things:

1. I have started doing the references properly, with the authors names etc. Please can you help with this? You can take a look at the section I did to see how it looks. WP:FN and WP:CITET will give the full details.
2. re Criticism of PAS: I am not sure about whether the Leadership Council or the websites that Trish has given meet the requirements for reliable sources since I don't see that they are peer-reviewed in any way. It looks like the "Report of the American Psychological Association presidential task force on violence and the family" from 1995 would have the same sort of info about more specific criticism of how PAS gets used, but I can't find it on the web. Can anybody help? Or do you have a copy of it, Trish? --Slp1 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, forget about what I said in 2, since all we need to prove is that critics are saying these things, which the links do. I did think the APA specifics would be interesting though.--Slp1 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have engaged in a major condensing exercise of parts of the family law section. I have tried to maintain all the arguments, but have taken out many of the examples. Some I have moved to the US section since they were country specific. The others are in the history, and might be good in the WP articles on the specific topics.

A major change I have made is to put the Family Law, Child custody and shared parenting into one section, boldly moving away from our agreed outline. It seems to me that these are such overlapping areas that it was inappropriate to try to divide them artificially in the way we were planning. I am not sure the title is the greatest, though! Any ideas?

I have also put in a bunch of citation needed tags. I don't doubt that these statements are true, but we need attribution for them. We also need to do the proper footnoting as I noted above. Since doing this is what is really tedious, I suggest we all get in the habit of doing this straightaway since it is always a pain having to go back and redo these things. Slp1 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job you've done, Slp1. The article is much more clear now, and much easier to read. I like the condensation you've done of the Family Law section re: Child Custody and Shared Parenting. Much easier to read now.

I added a bit to the "Child Support" section, and I think it's in a neutral point of view.

Also, critics don't say that there is no bias against fathers in family law cases. All of the gender bias reports described gender bias against fathers in custody cases and such. They describe the kinds of bias fathers have faced in divorce and custody cases. That part of the statement is the only incorrect part. The rest of it (regarding fathers often getting custody when they contest it) is correct. I'll reword that paragraph in a bit. I'm taking a break from working now to check on Wikipedia.

I have the APA specifics about PAS, Slp1, but they are no longer available online. Let me dig through my research material and get the details. When I have them, I'll post them to the PAS section.

If I have sources for the areas where you placed "citation needed" tags, I'll post them. Those statements were written by someone else, so I don't have the citations off the top of my head. I try to include citations for everything that I write.

Trish Wilson 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A great consolidation has occurred! As a result some very interesting details and examples have been deleted. Michael H 34 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for the (mostly) positive feedback. Some of the examples are in the US section now, since the main part of the article needs to avoid a US bias, surely. I also thought many of the details were unnecessary where we aren't really supposed to be giving extraneous details about the issues themselves. But they would probably be excellent in some of the other articles. Have you seen the Shared parenting one? It is in desperate need of expansion and a lot of those details would be great there, IMHO. The extra sub-heading is a great idea, Michael. And please do correct the sentence about no bias against fathers, Trish. I was trying to write an intro sentence, but my ignorance of the subject is showing! --Slp1 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am concerned about your latest addition to the Domestic Violence section. Can you give sources for each sentence, please? Perhaps it is all in the document you link at the end, but I can't find them at a quick look. Please use proper footnotes including the name of the author, the date of the publication, publisher, and the page number in the reference as well as the weblink. I have already mentioned several times that Citation Templates may be helpful, so perhaps we can agree not to just add weblinks without the rest of the information required by WP. In the meantime I am going modify one sentence that I find very POV. --Slp1 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added the information from the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force to the Parental Alienation Syndrome section. Please do not remove it. It was removed once. It's a valid source, and I give the proper footnote, even though the report is no longer available online.

Trish Wilson 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slp1, please let me congratulate you on the excellent job that you have done with the consolidation and the article as a whole.

Some of the details that I missed were hidden by a missing "/" in a link. I agree with you that the article should not have a US bias. I found some other details that I missed in the US section (which has gotten quite big!!!) I imagine that the inclusion of anecdotal information is an issue for many articles and that their inclusion must be decided on a case by case basis. I imagine that when too many anecdotes are included, the quality of the article can be diminished. Does a particular anecdote contribute to the article by providing an example of a germane issue, or does it diminish the article?

One of the anecdotes that I missed was about a UK father who lost custody of his child or children because the judge acted with empathy toward the mother because she said that she was depressed.

Slp1, thank you again for your excellent work on the article. Michael H 34 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Decr32, Thank you for all your instructive comments which helped serve as wikipedia training for me. Thank you also for finding the supporting links to help define shared parenting. Michael H 34 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

• As noted below, you have done a great job with the references, Michael. Having a quick look through the current state of the article, I note that there is still a lot of repetition (esp in the criticism section) which I will try to condense and rationalize in the next little while.

Your questions about examples are important. My personal opinion is that we should avoid most of these, partly because they tend to be country-specific, and partly because they tend to smack of advocacy. For example, I am not sure the "banning" of one book in one country really rates a mention. The point is well made by the preceding sentence "Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the some governments have condoned censorship by making it a "crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly" and if people want to find more they can click the links and find out more. The same goes for the percentages of child support paid that Michael has noted. Other things that need work and thought

• The intro, and what follows "The fathers' rights movement arose with changes in both the law and in societal attitudes, including:...." All the items on the list may be individually sourceable, but we actually need a reference or references that state that these are the 'cause' (or whatever) of the FRM. Otherwise it is Original Research.
• A lot of the stuff in the country sections (e.g. ballots etc) is not really about the FRM per se but about the issues and would be better in the article on shared parenting or whatever. A much shorter version, such as "FRM activities have led to ballots in x and y states, blah blah" would probably be appropriate.

--Slp1 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the significance of the ballot results is evaluated as would be the inclusion of notable supporters. It also highlights the difference in results when opposition to the FRM campaign against shared parenting. Michael H 34 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Massachusetts 2004 Shared parenting non-binding vote - no campaigning => 84.5% voted approval

North Dakota 2006 Shared parenting plus child support based on costs. Measure defeated 56% to 43%. North Dakota State Bar Association campaigns against initiative. (Ads claim that Title IV-D money to North Dakota would be lost because of the child support provision.) Lawrence E. King, the president of the NDSBA, claimed that he believed that a main goal of Measure 3 was the reduction or elimination of the non-custodial parent's child support obligation.

Michigan 2007 Parent's Rights Activists such as Dads of Michigan and Moms of Michigan seek passage of HB 5267,[85] a bill that would allow for a presumption of joint physical custody in the case of divorce as long as both parents live in the same school district, there is no clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to care for the child, and makes no changes in child support payments.

It tells a story of the progression of the movement to achieve the goal of shared parenting in the US, one state at a time. Michael H 34 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Domestic Violence - Page Numbers for citations

"Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that it is extremely rare for fathers to abuse their children and that when children are abused, it almost always occurs after the father has been separated from their children."

Page 47 "Despite irresponsible statements.... Page 48 Maggie Gallagher sums....

"Members of the fathers' rights movement state the primary cause for increasing allegations of domestic violence and child abuse is the result of the inflamatory "win or lose" nature of child custody hearings, which they contend has encouraged false allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse." Page 43 "Child abuse has similarly.... Page 5 "Americans have been inundated...." Page 25 "We believe that...."

Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that domestic violence and child abuse should be prosecuted based on due process of law and that government officials and social workers should not have the power to violate constitutional rights. Page 58 "Our first recommendation...."

Members of the fathers' rights movement claim that fathers are considered guilty and are not presumed to be innocent, just because they are men. Page 44 "This lack of due process...." Page 60 In box "We recommend...." Page 51 "As will be seen...."

I'll find more or reword sentences, if mecessary.

Michael H 34 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

• Thanks for these, Michael and for the tremendous job at proper citations that you have done. Doesn't the reference list look better?! I will take a look at these specific references when I have a minute (not likely for a bit, since I am swamped at present). --Slp1 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, SLP1! Michael H 34 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Recent edits

I have boldly replaced a large chunk of the intro section that had just been deleted. I agree that it is only partially cited at present, but only today has the need for attribution for this section and the dangers of WP:SYNT been pointed out (see above), and I believe that a little more time is appropriate. The replacement text while sourced did not seemed somewhat POV, so I have moved it with a minor change to the criticism section.

Before hitting save page I see that Decr32 has deleted part of it again, rather than get in edit war I would ask him or her to consider reinstating it while giving a chance for citations to be found. --Slp1 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed, Decr32. I appreciate your actions in restoring the section very much. --Slp1 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that quite a bit of the intro section was very POV, and it needed to be changed. I'm glad that Decr32 changed some of that. I'll change some of it on my own in the next couple of days, with sources as I always do.

Trish Wilson 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• What I have noticed is how difficult it is to add information and make it NPOV without getting very longwinded (and dare I say it, a bit boring!!!!). Somehow we need to get the important points in without belabouring things and avoiding POV phrasing. It is quite a challenge, I find. But we are getting there, I think, with a few steps forward and backward as we go. Once again I congratulate all on the cooperative spirit, given that we are coming from some very different POVs --Slp1 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO the problem with length is because FR = lobbying. One could say the FR movement is the set of people who use persuasive argument to convince the world at large that FR's issues are pressing social issues. FR lobbying is directly opposed by mother's interest groups doing the same thing with their issues - thus you have 2 (small) groups of people trying to outdo each other's persuasive arguments.

This article achieves a semblance of balance by including the shouting from both sides. However in doing so it includes ALL the persuasive argument from both sides (which is so tedious to read). And it omits a description of what FR is - it just goes on and on repeating the persuasive arguments that FR's use in their lobbying activity. In that sense the entire article is soapbox.

I really think this article should be, at most, 1 page long. Describe the father's rights movement....

Decr32 07:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, something of the same thought came to me overnight. It occured to me that way too much space is spent arguing the points without any mention of how the movement is organized, how/do they meet, relationship between various groupings, etc etc. --Slp1 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"One could say the FR movement is the set of people who use persuasive argument to convince the world at large that FR's issues are pressing social issues."

Wouldn't you like to know more about the issues facing fathers?

The article as it exists presents the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement concerning fathers' rights.

I believe that the article should maintain a neutral point of view while expressing the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics. If this is achieved though the proper attribution of statements, then the article is not "soapbox".

Is it true that no other Wikipedia article discusses the point of view of members of a group while maintaining a neutral point of view?

This is not an article about the Magnifying Transmitter.

Michael H 34 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The article as it exists presents the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement concerning fathers' rights.

That is my point. An encyclopedia article is supposed to summarise the consensus of KNOWLEDGE, not a compendium of opinion

Decr32 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you like to know more about the issues facing fathers?

The issues can be explained in a couple of paragraphs.

However any summary here is buried under persuasive argument to convince readers that FR's issues are pressing social concerns. An encyclopedia should only present the facts and let readers do their own interpretation.

Decr32 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection: the length of this article does not result in more information about the issues - it just repeats more of the argument. More precisely, the extra material in the article does not contribute to expand on the issues in greater depth or breadth - it just expands on the argument about the issues.

Decr32 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you have informed me of your point of view about the article.

A point of view is information and encyclopedia articles include information. It would be a mistake to present viewpoints as fact without attribution. However, this is not being done in this article. The fathers' rights point of view is presented. The critics point of view is presented. All points of view are attributed and as a result, the article itself is neutral and does not have a point of view.

Michael H 34 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34\

A point of view is information and encyclopedia articles include information.

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because someone has an opinion does not make that opinion encyclopedic content.

Decr32 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I hope that you will agree that the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement would qualify as encyclopedic content for this article. Michael H 34 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Consider a school student or 1st year undergrad doing a paper on some aspect of the father's rights movement. What do people use the encyclopedia for? They want a general overview of what the movement is, how it is organised and what FR people do. It's a starting point for their own research.

The academic value of the opinion here is comparable to a self-selected opinion poll. It's not academically useful for research, and it's not informative in its own right. Basically, FRs are not authorities on sociology etc, so why should hypothetical reader Joe Bloggs care what some FR bloke thinks about some study about parenting outcomes?

Decr32 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has no opinion of its own and informs the reader of the viewpoints of those who support fathers' rights and those who are critical of fathers' rights. Readers can value the information as they wish. Michael H 34 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Introduction

"The fathers' rights movement arose with changes in both the law and in societal attitudes" uses "arose with" as weasel words to imply a relationship without evidence. Also the nature of the relationship is missing - if a relationship is notable enough to mention in a wikipedia entry the source would identify the nature of the relationship. Decr32 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• As noted above, I totally agree that we need a reference that sees there being a causal relationship between these various factors and the growth of the fathers' rights movements. --Slp1 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing some of the indicators [not in citation given].

The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage

"Some experts say the divorce rate increase is not surprising in these countries given the decline in the practice of Catholicism"

Alleged government policies which have lead to increases in divorce rates

"Fatherless families are a growing problem, but the principal cause is not bad behavior or the fault of fathers; it is government policies with respect to divorce and child support. Beginning with California in 1969, every state has adopted “no-fault” divorce, which may be more properly called unilateral divorce — one partner can end a marriage without penalty and without the consent of the other party."

"Women are almost always awarded custody of the children, leading one research team to conclude that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce."

Alleged government policies which have lead to increases in divorce rates ==>

Government policies which some believe have lead to increases in divorce rates

Michael H 34 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I replaced the tags. The cite does not support the claim in the article that there is a connection between these things and FRM.

Decr32 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I will make an edit and remove the tags. Please revert if you think it appropriate. Michael H 34 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That whole passage in the intro is an exercise in gilding the lily - historical revisionism - because some FR would like their movement to have a noble history, for lobbying reasons.

The fact is less glamorous, simply that FRM arose as a response to changes in child support laws in the 80s in US, UK and Australia. You could perhaps include no-fault divorce, because that increased the number of men exposed to those new laws. But that is about as noble a heritage as the sources will stretch to.

Admittedly it's not as flattering as FR might like, but that is what the attributable published consensus is, and that is what the article should say.

Decr32 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the movement arose as result of the increase in divorce rates and the effects of divorce on fathers. I'm going to eliminate the statement about changes in societal attitudes. Michael H 34 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Individual help and support

I have boldly removed weasel words from this section about infighting, as both FR and critics agree that infighting is a problem.

Decr32 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Trish Wilson merely stated that members of the fathers' movement agree that infighting is a problem. Michael H 34 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The evidence presented is FR's writing about being backstabbed by each other. There is plenty more evidence but I don't think you would want it in the FR article: FR's stalking their fellow FR's current wives, conspiring with ex-wives and supplying private information to sabotage family court cases, hassling employers to shut down competing mailing lists... really grubby stuff, done by FR's to fellow FR's.

I would suggest a general comment that infighting goes on is tame and relatively flattering to FR - given the alternative is a detailed account with examples.

Decr32 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to the judgment of others regarding the significance of "infighting" and the notability of the evidence provided.

Is there evidence that Yuri Joakamedis is a member of the fathers' rights movement? What does it mean to be a member of the fathers' rights movement? In one of the links, somebody claims that the plot to kidnap Tony Blair's child was planted by opposition to Fathers 4 Justice. Is this true? If a member had discussed such a plot, then is it laudable that the group disbanded? Did the group really disband and then regroup? Didn't some fathers recently demonstrate at Stonehenge? Michael H 34 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"At the local level, many fathers' rights groups spend a large portion of their time providing support for newly separated fathers. In many cases these groups also campaign for a greater consideration of the rights of grandparents and women (especially step mothers) in second marriages."

Members of the fathers' rights movement also support the rights of non-custodial mothers and mothers who have had their children taken away from them by social workers. Michael H 34 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

These issues, membership and infighting, would be more appropriate in a section about the organisation of FR. As I understand the sources:

FR [in the western world] is a loose collection of individuals with transient affiliation to FR groups. FR groups tend to be organised around a charismatic leader. (perhaps charismatic is not the right word, groups tend to be a one-man organisation with a 'fan club' of followers.)

The movement includes a broad range of positions from:

• organised self-help - such as Dads in Distress, loosely based on AA methods.
• casual self-help - eg discussion groups such as dadsontheair.com
• groups revolving around bitterness over their own personal situation (the personal situation of their charismatic leader)
• religious-right, who use FR as a platform to push a moral agenda.
• and patriarchal misogynists - such as 'The Ozydads Network' which seriously claimed there is a feminist conspiracy to exterminate the male sex.

Typically members of the FR movement belong to numerous groups at any one time. (membership tends to be 'the group' claims the member among its membership, rather than the member identifies themselves as a member)

Decr32 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Yuri Joakimidis membership of FR illustrates the above point. Joakamidis does not identify himself as a member of the FR movement.

However Lionel Richards claims he is, to lecture him about infighting. And another Australian FR (WP user manumit) listed Joakimidis as a notable activist in a previous version of this article.

Yoakamidis is certainly involved in the same subjects as FR is interested in (see "Why Howard suddenly started talking about custody battles" - ref note 28 in the main article). He is head of the Joint Parenting Association of Australia, and authored the definitive report on shared parenting used by all FR groups in Aus.

Is he a member of the FR movement? Perhaps it depends on how we define the FR movement - the article doesn't have a definition yet.

Decr32 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Michael H 34 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

At the local level, many fathers' rights groups spend a large portion of their time providing support for newly separated fathers.

What support is provided? How is it provided? How is it funded? Where can a newly separated father get some? These are the kind of facts the article needs.

Decr32 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I noted that others agreed with you. Michael H 34 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Criticism

They draw on anecdote and "horror stories" to support their claims and use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional response.

This sentence needs to be attributed. (The citation provided is not working.) Michael H 34 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is attributed. The citation is a peer-reviewed journal, primary publication is on paper. There are electronic copies at various libraries but you need an account to access them.

Decr32 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement should read: "Critics say that ...." In this way, the article remains neutral. Michael H 34 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Labelling the observer as a critic imparts POV. The statement is one of objective facts that can be objectively answered.

• Do FRs draw on anecdote? Yes they do. In fact Michael H mentions it in this talk page to defend the use of anecdote in the article.

• Do FRs use "horror stories"? There are several in the Michigan section. The term "horror stories" might be reworded NPOV as "dramatic anecdote", but FR themselves use "horror stories" when discussing strategy.

• Do FR use rhetorical strategies? Rhetoric means 'persuasive argument'.

• Do FR attempt to elicit emotional response with their persuasive arguments that begin "children can suffer..."?

I recall an online discussion where FR's discussed how to present horror stories for most shock value, I will source it to make the references more NPOV.

Decr32 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Labelling the observer as a critic imparts POV. The statement is one of objective facts that can be objectively answered."

The article should include POV, but the POV must be assigned.

Assuming that I am a member of the fathers' rights movement (I've never attend a meeting....), then the bullet points listed above may be "fact".

However "They draw on anecdote and 'horror stories' to support their claims and use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional response" as fact without attribution is stated as a criticism of the fathers' rights movement and it is included in a section labeled criticism! Without attribution, the article does not maintain a neutral point of view. It is appropriate to attribute the statement to critics, because it is the viewpoint of the critics that the use of anecdote and rhetoric is something to be critical about.

I noticed that anecdotes were included in the section titled Harassing....

Michael H 34 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That paragraph already begins with "Critics say..". We don't have to wrap every phrase in weasel words.

Also, what is your criteria for calling this sentence criticism?

Example, "Hitler killed people", is that criticism or a statement of fact? Should we wrap that in weasel words, "Critics say Hitler killed people". If not, why not? What is the difference between the sentences 'hitler killed people' and 'FRs draw on anecdote' to justify different treatment of attribution?

Decr32 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The placement of that sentence in the criticism section is an artifact of Slp restoring my edits to the introduction. But since you mentioned that you drew an inference from the placement, that raises another concern I have: that the existence of a criticism section creates POV by artifically partitioning the material into 2 classes:

• pro father's rights and advocacy
• everything that isn't pro-father's rights

Similarly with the partitioning of books into 2 classes: Michael Flood's book is unfairly labelled "critical of FR" when it is, more or less, a balanced academic work.

Decr32 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Michael Flood's views are not neutral.

Including viewpoints in this article is necessary. Viewpoints should be properly attributed.

Michael H 34 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Saying that Flood wrote a book is not including Floods view in the article. Stating your opinion about about Flood's book while mentioning he wrote a book is POV and, as you say, should be properly attributed.

Decr32 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read Flood's book. If a link to the book is included, then, in my opinion, it is proper to list it among books that are critical of the fathers' rights movement. The title of the book includes the word undermine. Michael H 34 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The title of a second book includes the words backlash and angry men. Michael H 34 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

references to "FR believe" in introduction

Belief is not verifiable because it is a private thing inside someone's head. 'Claim' or 'say' is verifiable.

It is debatable whether FR's actually "believe" all the things they say. Political lobbying frequently involves saying things which advance the activist's argument or appeal to the audience, not necessarily because the activist actually believes it.

Decr32 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that belief is difficult to verify. I replaced believe with state.

I also fixed the second paragraph of the introduction and removed attribution.

Michael H 34 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

POV by selective paraphrasing

The FR in the cite stated that politicians go out of their way to kill fathers. NPOV requires that ALL things FR say be treated consistently. Gilding the lily with paraphrasing to hide stuff is POV and advocacy. WP is not a soapbox.

Decr32 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please explain your rationale for deleting this encyclopedic content.

Decr32 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the anonymous poster who wrote profanity on a blog represents the collective views of the "members of the fathers' rights movement."

Michael H 34 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The statement didn't claim it was the collective views of the "members of the fathers' rights movement". It said, "Members of FRM state... just like many of your contributions, of which there is also no evidence that they are representative of the collective views of FRM.

As for credibility of the source, DOTA is a radio show with a discussion forum which has been running for years and is recognised by FR groups, such as the shared parenting council of australia. Jason has been a regular contributor to DOTA for years.

Decr32 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I have reinstated the content again. I would appreciate if you leave the content there until the other contributors give their opinion.

If the profanity really bothers you (and I doubt it really does), I will find another source for this factual statement

Decr32 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A minute on google turns up the fatherhood coalition saying the same thing: According to Johnson, "We must call attention to Federal legislators that bonus incentives from the Federal government to the States are killing fathers and families - Attorney Barbara Johnson

Are you now satified this statement is true: "Members of FRM state that these policies kill fathers?"

Decr32 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read that "suicide is a problem for fathers" and "many fathers find their situation hopeless."

Why have you offered a profane blog post as a citation and placed the statement right in front of the section where the views of the fathers' rights movement are introduced?

For this article to remain neutral, shouldn't the sentence "members of the fathers' rights movement are angry men, who do not have a parental instinct, and it is not in the best interest of the children to allow them to be parents" be stated, instead of implied, preceded with "Critics of the FRM state" and presented in the Criticism section?

I don't condone profanity. Clearly, the blogger in the citation that you offered is angry.

(Perhaps the blogger is suffering because his children have been taken away from him, and that he has to pay a significant amount of his discretionary income to support the lifestyle of his ex-wife or girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who now spends more time with his children than he does. Perhaps he believes that women no longer find him attractive because, although he is working, he has little discretionary income to help support a new girlfriend. Perhaps, he no longer trusts women because, if he has another child, the same thing might happen and if it does, he might wind-up homeless. Perhaps he views his situation as hopeless.)

If this were a Wikipedia article on the women's rights movement, in which both supporting and critical viewpoints are presented, would it be appropriate to allow an opponent of the women's rights movement to select and present the viewpoints and citations of the women's rights movement? Would that introduce POV into the article on the women's rights movement?

I have worked hard on this article and I have worked in good faith. The history of this article shows that I edited the critics' views on child abuse and domestic violence so that these viewpoints were presented clearly and presuasively.

Is it wrong to allow members of the fathers' rights movement to present their views clearly? How does that imbue the article with POV if the viewpoints of critics are also presented?

Michael H 34 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Regarding courts driving fathers to suicide, David Crary wrote an AP article that said angry fathers are driven to both suicide and murder. He quoted Lowell Jaks, President of the Alliance For Non-Custodial Parents Rights (ANCPR), which is a major fathers rights group. Jaks said, "none of these guys are poster children. But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack." Jaks also said "some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others. You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem." The article also says that it might not be the court system per se that makes men like this. Those men may be more isolated than women are who divorce, so it's the isolation that leads to the behavior. Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said that those men likely had violent tendencies over a long period that contributed to the divorce and loss of custody.

The Darren Mack case involved an angry father who murdered his wife and shot the judge hearing the case. The Mack case is already mentioned in the FR article. Mack was just on 48 Hours, where he held himself up as a spokesman for fathers rights. If dads being driven to suicide by the court system is going to be mentioned, dads who commit murder should also be mentioned. Jaks is a major FR activist who found excuses for that kind of behavior. Here's the link to the AP article:

[[1]]

Here's the link to info about the 48 Hours show about Mack.

[[2]]

If fathers being driven to suicide is going to be brought up, fathers who commit murder should also be brought up. This is what I would write:

Finally, members of the fathers' rights movement point out that it has been acknowledged by officials in Canada, Australia, and Britain that fathers have been driven to suicide by family courts. Lowell Jaks, President of the Alliance For Non-Custodial Parents Rights, says that fathers are driven to both suicide and murder by family courts. However, Nancy Duff Campbell of the National Women's Law Center, said that those fathesr likely had violent tendencies over a long period that contributed to the divorce and loss of custody. [[3]]

I won't post about this until I get an okay. It's worth pointing out, but it might make the article too much like activism and too POV. Can someone help me write this so that it is neither POV or activist?

Trish Wilson 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote looks okay to me. Would it be better placed in the section on family law? Michael H 34 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks, Michael. I moved the suicide and new murder info to the family court section. I think it's more appropriate for the family court section rather than the intro section, unless it follows the "Dads On The Air" reference in the intro. It could probably go in either section.

Trish Wilson 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Michael spent a lot of time on the article. However effort and good intention is not a factor when evaluating the encyclopedic value of the material.

The introduction should introduce the material with a coherent, logical flow of ideas.

The current introduction began as advocacy, now the material is an awkward fit to the article because the clean up attempted to preserve every point and fit sources around it. As sources came in the statements were changed to fit the sources, and now the intro says almost nothing about the FRM:

It starts with postmodern-ish waffle about FRM being related to other concepts (all unsourced)

it proposes reasons for an increase in divorce rate

then it moves straight to FRM advocating about children's rights

The underlying structure of that section was sound:

• FRM arose from..... (reaction to changes in public policy) + (increase number or men affected)
• because.... (the changes affect men in these ways.....)
• consequently FRs formed groups which do ....(support, political activism)

We have a loose consensus on the first item. The second item needs work for consensus.

FRs become FRs first and foremost because of their own personal concerns: emotional responses such as anger and loneliness, and financial concerns from child support and property settlement.

I understand Michael is saying nothing with negative connotations can be allowed in the article unless it is labelled as "criticism". How then, can we include these things in the article?

A NPOV article can't skip over these facts and go straight to men citing such and such study. (Men don't walk out of court and look up sociology research - they are given the material by FR groups when they seek help with their personal problems)

Decr32 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have you offered a profane blog post as a citation and placed the statement right in front of the section where the views of the fathers' rights movement are introduced?

I put the material immediately after the list of policies that FR is a reaction to, because the statement is a response to those policies and how they affect fathers. The placement is in line with the logical flow of the introduction.

Alleged profanity in the source is irrelevant.

Decr32 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Decr32, how does this sound as a start for a rewrite of the intro, explaining what fathers' rights groups are? I can find more sources than the one that I cite below. I just haven't done it yet.

The fathers rights movement is part of the larger men's movement. Men become active in the fathers' rights movement most often when they divorce or become involved in custody battles.[[4]] Fathers rights groups organize on the Internet and in individual states. [[5]] Some members of the fathers' rights movement financially benefit from the movement, such as some attorneys who specialize in fathers' rights. [[6]] [[7]] The fathers' rights movement offers these men a haven to express their hurt, anger, and fear. [[8]] On the other hand, rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles. Father's rights activists themselves have admitted that infighting between groups and individuals is a problem for the movement.Internal strife is one factor that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice in the U. K.

Trish Wilson 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trish, I disagree with this change to the introduction.

Decr32, in response to your statement:

"FRs become FRs first and foremost because of their own personal concerns: emotional responses such as anger and loneliness, and financial concerns from child support and property settlement."

Perhaps, Michael Flood would agree with the point of view.

Members of the fathers' right movement state that they love their children.

Michael H 34 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The encyclopedic value of that statement would be...?

Michael, your POV that anything that doesn't portray FRM positively is POV has been noted. However FRM does not exist in a Relativist fairyland devoid of all fact.

Men who have never had anything to do with FRM before initiate contact with FRM for some reason - and those reasons can be objectively identified. That would be a fact, not point of view.

It is ludicrous to suggest by omission that Men who get dumped by their wives on acrimonious terms respond by citing sociology texts in noble, self-sacrificing terms.

Decr32 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Michael has been very fair and very clear about his willingness to have "negative" perspectives in the article. --Slp1 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and other stuff

You guys have been busy. My thoughts are:

1. This article is really about the Fathers' Rights movement. Should it be renamed? (Honest question)
2. Blogs etc are not considered reliable sources, so I think there is some doubt about some of the citations in the article
3. I have found some interesting scholarly articles on the Fathers' Rights Movement that we should use
4. I still think that there are way too many examples and details and repetition, as well as attempts to convince. I know it is tempting to add stuff, but I think our goal should streamline and condense what we have already.
5. I am currently leaning towards a much shorted intro, that includes some of the "criticism" rather than referring people to the end. This is supposed to be a encyclopedia article, and there are clearly very different attitudes towards the movement.
   I intend to begin some editing shortly!--Slp1 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be renamed to Fathers Rights Movement Decr32 06:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been doing an extensive series of edits of some sections, including reorganizing, condensing and citing, while trying to preserve the intent. As a general explanation:

1. I have removed some very specific US issues.
2. I have checked most of the citations and have deleted/modified some claims/comments because they were not supported by the citation. I have asked for citations for a few others: since some would not be considered reliable by WP standards (e.g. facts from non-peer reviewed paper)

--Slp1 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no nays in the last week, and since I tend to agree with Decr32, I think I will boldly renamed the article. --Slp1 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual Support

"Rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles.[65] Father's rights activists themselves have admitted that infighting between groups and individuals is a problem for the movement.[66][67][68][69]Internal strife is one factor that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice in the U. K.[70]"

I that these sentences be considered for elimination. The sources do not appear to be notable and the information about Fathers 4 Justice is repeated just below it.

Michael H 34 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think it should stay up because one site is that of a well-known critic of the fathers' rights movement, and the other sources are newsgroup posts from fathers' rights activists themselves. It should be pointed out that rivalry and infighting do happen in fathers' rights groups. The most notable example of this is the infighting that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice.

In addition, there are plenty of sources in the article supportive of fathers rights that could be said to be not notable. If the sources regarding rivalry and infighting are to be removed, sources supportive of the fathers' rights movement should be looked at in the same manner.

Trish Wilson 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The text could be written to say that "Critics say that rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers' rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles." The second sentence is fine the way it is because those are statements by fathers' rights activists themselves.

Trish Wilson 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an extra footnote to this section, and I fixed the existing footnotes. The footnote I added is to a newspaper, but you can't read the article anymore without paying a fee. The first two paragraphs appear on the newspaper's web site, but you can't read the rest without registering and paying a fee. The article is below. This article shows another example of infighting within a fathers' rights group, and I think it takes care of any problems with citations.

Fatherhood Coalition ousts leader

By Jack Dew,

Berkshire Eagle Staff

North Adams Transcript (MA)

PITTSFIELD -- A sharp rift has been exposed in the leadership of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition after a group of dissident officers say they have ousted their controversial spokesman.

The coup took place on Wednesday night, when eight members of the fathers' rights group met and voted to eject Rinaldo Del Gallo III, said Richard Hover, who claims to be the group's new president. Hover said Del Gallo's tirades, unreliability and militant stance on the subject of fathers' rights have combined to drive members away, weakening the coalition.

But Del Gallo said the vote was attended by only three of the coalition's eight officers, and thus did not constitute a majority. In a written statement, Del Gallo said that he is the spokesman of the group, and that -- since only the spokesman has the authority to make official statements on behalf of the coalition -- it is the official position of the coalition that he is still an officer and the group's spokesman. He said Hover's statements should be disregarded.

Trish Wilson 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Michael, but mostly because I find it a very odd transition from self-help stuff to the infighting. I would actually like to see this section expanded and made into broader section about how the movement works (and put it right at the start of the article). There seems to be self-help aspects (face to face and online), lobbying/advocacy aspects, and more out-there activists such as the Fathers4Justice and the highly unpleasant (to me) Blackshirts. A related question is the relationship to the Religious right? I gather from some reading that there may a high degree of turnover in members and leaders which is probably part of this section, as well as the infighting thing. I am also going to suggest that we move the harassment parts into the individual country sections. I think they would go better there. Slp1 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The infighting is rather common in fathers' rights groups. Maybe that section needs to be developed a bit more to point out that lots of fathers do look to the fathers' rights movement for support and help, but the movement has been criticized for encouraging victimhood status and inciting anger in fathers who might not have acted that way if they had not been exposed to a fathers' rights group. I have sources to back up my statements. There are men's movement groups that do help men, but the fathers rights movement has a problem with rivalry, infighting, and suggestions to men that actually makes their personal situations worse. I also have sources regarding some fathers' rights movement ties to the Religious right. I agree that the harassment parts could be moved to the sections, such as countries, where that is appropriate. At the same time, I think that a separate "harassment" section works well, especially since it keeps all of those kinds of stories in one place where they are easier to find. Trish Wilson 16:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Internal strife is one factor that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice in the U. K."

This is repeated three times in the article.

I also noted that a rift between Fathers 4 Justice and Fathers 4 Justice US was recently mended. Michael H 34 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

70% statistic

Here's more information on this statistic:

http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php

Michael H 34 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Child support

The proposed sentence:

"While acknowledging that parents' expenses increase as a result of divorce or separation, critics of the fathers' rights movement disagree with the use of the Cost Share model proposed by Fathers' rights advocates because they believe that generous child support is in the best interest of the children."

was reverted to the following sentence:

"Critics respond that generous child support is in the best interest of the children, and they criticize the Cost Share model proposed by Fathers' rights advocates because it focuses on the living standard of divorcing parents relative to each other, discarding the notion that children be supported at the same level after a divorce."

In my opinion, the phrase "discarding the notion that children be supported at the same level after a divorce" has been taken out of context because children cannot be supported at the same level after divorce and the author of the linked document has acknowledged this. The sentence "Critics respond...." implies that the author (or a critic of the fathers' rights movement) believes in good faith that children can be supported at the same level after a divorce.

Michael H 34 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael,

I do not see any support from the cited document to support your contention that the author admits that children "cannot be supported at the same level after a divorce". Or that this goal is "ideal but unrealizable". Quite the contrary in fact:

"In sum, the Cost Shares model of child support guidelines makes many assumptions that are out of the mainstream of economics. Moreover, at every level of income where income is not equal, the Cost Shares model produces child support awards that are lower than any other state's currently existing child support guideline. The Cost Shares model has abandoned a basic tenet of child support: the child should remain at the same standard of living before and after the divorce. For these reasons, states should be wary when presented with a Cost Shares model for consideration." Can I ask you to remove your edit about "the ideal but unrealizable notion"? I fear it is opinion/original research.--Slp1 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Slp1,

I ask you to consider the following section from the provided link:

"These figures imply that unless the total income of the two parents rises by 50.3% (($21,759 - $14,480) / $14,480), regardless of how income is divided between the two households, at least one household will suffer a decline in its standard of living after divorce. Stated simply in economic terms, there are going to be losers from divorce. The normative question that guidelines seeks to answer is how best to share this burden.

The Cost Shares model, however, does not focus on the loss and how to share it."

The author has acknowledged the increase in expenses for the parents upon divorce.

The notion that "the child should remain at the same standard of living before and after the divorce" is only consonant with another notion, namely that children never spend any time with their father. The second notion is an abomination to me.

I believe that my first edit was appropriate. I ask you to consider changes to the sentence at issue.

Michael H 34 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I would add the word more before the word generous to my first suggested edit. Michael H 34 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I can certainly understand what you are saying and why you feel the way you do. But the problem is that "the ideal but unrealizable notion" is your commentary, opinion, and synthesis to make a point, and not what the author said or concluded. You are joining dots that she did not. You also deleted something that was clearly sourced in "discarding the notion that children be supported at the same level after a divorce", which is really not on. Slp1 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't read the whole document before making my first edit. I respect the author for acknowledging that "at least one household will suffer a decline in its standard of living after divorce." Finally, I understand your point. Maybe I'll be able to find a citation for this point. Thank you for your response.

Michael H 34 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

No problemo! Thanks for your response too. --Slp1 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia - New Law

"On May 22, 2006, Australia passed the "Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006" making both parents responsible for decisions about their child through the concept of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, but did not order that the child must spend equal amounts of time with each parent.[84]"

This is in agreement with the linked document.

However, in the absence of parental agreement, the law requires judges to order 50/50 shared custody unless it is not practical and not in the best interest of the children. This was clearly written in the law (which was previously linked); a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting was created. This is not communicated in the article.

"Fathers' rights group...step in right direction...disppointment"

The "disppointment" of a fathers' rights group is not linked to the final law, but rather to what the Senate had passed prior to the enactment of the final law. They may (but may not) be one in the same. The disappointment expressed by the fathers' rights group is based on the strong belief in the bias of family court judges. I wonder if judges are required to officially document why they did not order 50/50 shared custody.

I ask that that the quoted sentences above be considered for change.

Michael H 34 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following two sentences are from the article:

"Such laws require parents be directed to develop a mutually agreeable parenting plan. If they are unable to do so, judges order an equal time-share of physical custody between the parents, unless it is not practical or in the best interests of the children."

This is now the law in Australia (on a prospective basis). Shouldn't the article make this clear? Michael H 34 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I changed the sentence about the reaction to the Australia's new law, which contrary to the statement of the lawyer quoted in the link, prospectively creates a rebuttable presumption for equal parenting time.

Michael H 34 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: "65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances"

Michael H 34 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Link supporting disappointment of a FRG that the law did not guarantee equal parenting time:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/familylaw/subs/sub40.pdf

Michael H 34 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Link for a description of the new law:

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/14932.htm

Michael H 34 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I like the changes describing the new law. I'm done! Michael H 34 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Time to stop and think

A couple of things occur to me at this point:
Wikipedia is telling us that this article is too long, and I agree. I also think that we are continuing to fall into the trap of trying to add information about the issues, and not the Father's rights movement itself. As has been mentioned before, we need a good section about how the whole thing operates.
One thing that will help is a severe cropping the US section, cutting it down to a length similar to the other countries. At the moment this section is mostly about FRM issues/laws/polls, not about the FRM itself, though some of things (polls etc) can be mentioned very briefly, as they are in the other country sections. If the information is important then let's make a new page about the FRM in the US (though maybe it is more about family law in the US?) as already exists for the UK.
I am honestly getting very close to the point of suggesting a very severe pruning of this article, with the good information moved over into the related articles (such as child custody), leaving only very brief summaries here. There is way too but information about the issues themselves, and the problem is that these sections are getting expanded all the time. Let's put them in articles where such expansions would be welcomed, rather than causing problems.

BTW I have moved the information from the International section into Shared Custody which is was really about. --Slp1 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a series of proposed deletions. I agree that the section on the USA was too long. I believe that the article is much shorter now.

Should the details of the issues be moved while the critics' views remain?

Michael H 34 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1, Please review the deletions that I made and revert as you wish.

If you see any additional information that you would like to move to another article, where it would be welcomed, please feel free or please let us know.

Best wishes and continued thanks,

Michael H 34 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1,

Great job! Bravo! Keep up the good work!

Michael H 34 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Michael, Actually it is up to me to congratulate you for the ruthlessness and fairness with which you deleted stuff! As you will see I have returned a few things reworded, but think the whole thing is 100 times better than it was this morning. I am finished for the time being, but know that there are a few things in the air:

I have added some sentences that are not currently cited. I don't think they are controversial and know that they can be easily cited by me or someone else.

I am would still like the US to be more like the other countries, where the vignettes are given as examples of FRM activity rather just information. I have tried but not truly satisfied with this. Also it would be nice to get a bit more info on FRM history in the US as well as the major organizations, so that it could be more like the other country sections too.

There's a few more things, but they will wait! I think we are really getting somewhere now! Slp1 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, You've done well! Michael H 34 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1,

I trust your judgement about removing the sentence about the potential effects of the adversarial system on involved fathers from the section on family court.

I don't know that much about the history of the fathers' rights movement in the US. I noticed that the US section is already relatively large. I'm not sure how to proceed, or whether it would be better for me to defer further changes to someone else.

If you prefer to replace this section with information that you believe would improve the article, please feel free.

Best wishes,

Michael H 34 Michael H 34 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Child Support

I resubmitted a few sentences to the Child Support section that had been deleted. I have no idea why they were deleted. They were relevant, cited statements that should have remained in that section.

I agree that the article was getting way too long. It's still too long. Hopefully, that will be remedied in the future.

Trish Wilson 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Slp1's rewrite was better than mine. Michael H 34 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Imprisonment is a last resort, after all other avenues of collection have been exhausted."

I do not believe that this sentence is supported by the provided link. http://www.childsupportenforcers.com/FAQ.htm

Michael H 34 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Wrightson v. Wrightson , 266 Ga. 493, 467 S.E.2d 498 (1996). The trial court’s determination of whether the obligor parent’s failure to pay child support is due to willful refusal or inability to pay will not be disturbed absent gross abuse of discretion.

"Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources , 269 Ga. 587, 502 S.E.2d 233 (1998). Trial court abused its discretion in continuing father’s incarceration for civil contempt for nonpayment of child support after finding that the father lacked the ability to pay. The concurring opinion points out that the county in question did not have a diversion program, and because the father’s only way to earn income was through manual labor, he lost his job when he was incarcerated, making him quite literally unable to pay. See also: Pittman v. Pittman, 179 Ga.App. 454, 346 S.E.2d 594 (1986)."

http://law.gsu.edu/library/index/bibliographies/view?id=178

Michael H 34 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

family law

There is much that is not included in the article.

In the U.S., bloggers have discussed

• their anecdotal experiences and views
• the importance of fathers to children
• the reasons why women initiate "the vast majority" of divorce and separation, especially when children are involved
• the negative portrayal of fathers and men in advertising
• the differences in the words used to describe men and women who commit crimes
• the recent initiative by child support enforcement agencies in putting information about "dead beat dads" on pizza boxes

I appreciate that not everything can be included in the article.

However, the section on family law is incomplete.

Michael H 34 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

notes

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/feb05/05-02-02.html

Michael H 34 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

An encyclopedia article need to be a summary and can only be so long and I agree with you that not everything can be in it. Especially as the article needs to be global in tone and avoid recentism. And of course, blogs are not considered reliable sources of information anyway. I think the main points are there. --Slp1 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being misleading. I have no plans on using blogs as sources! I'm handing off my thoughts on what is not covered so that I can join the beehive of activity at the article on the magnifying transmitter!

Your changes have improved the article greatly, but the family law section is missing one important point.

The members of the fathers rights movement challenge the best interest of the child standard.

more notes

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/news.php?id=43

Michael H 34 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Political influences on family court judges

Is this another topic worthy of including in this article? Michael H 34 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes:

"Although reformers criticize the election of judges in so far as it has the potential to erode judicial independence, appointing family court judges does not guarantee an independent judiciary. Family court judges are not immune to outside influences, as they are susceptible to political pressures brought to bear by the elected officials who make decisions about the composition of the family court bench."

"Although the “best interests” of the child is the overarching principle for custody decisions,27 “[t]oo often, gender stereotypes play a role in custody determinations.”28 With the advent of the father’s rights movement in the 1970s, yet another perspective on which parent is the preferable custodian has become part of the child custody debate. Owing to the substantial political activism stemming from the father’s rights movement,29 the political ramifications of a custody award, rather than the “best interests” of the child, may influence judges faced with a custody dispute."

http://www.abanet.org/judind/jeopardy/pdf/report.pdf

Michael H 34 00:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Certainly, statistics from the Family Court confirm men, on the whole, don't fare well when it comes to residence applications. In the 1998-1999 financial year, fathers were granted residence in just 19.6 per cent of cases." Bill Jackson, spokesperson for the Family Court, defends these figures. "The statistics reflect what the community wants. If the court started sending children to live with their fathers, it would be acting outside of what society expects."

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p3

Michael H 34 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"There seem to be networks of feminists tied in with every courthouse in Massachusetts who can create a media storm if a decision is unfavorable to them. Inexplicable decisions, nonsensical restraining orders, and gender bias in the extreme are the rule, not the exception."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm

Michael H 34 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

USA

More on Massachusetts

http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-10.htm

Michael H 34 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

http://www.massoutrage.com/dssdirtytricks.htm

Michael H 34 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

NH link: Article on Father's Rights in NH

MN Link: Center for Parental Responsibility

quilteresq 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fathers Are Capable Too, a FRG from Canada, includes an article about the Massachusetts DSS on its website:

The article is about the role of vested interest in the termination of parental rights.

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0004/mn00042d.htm

Michael H 34 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Shared Parenting and birth rate declines

On of the suggestions for changing low fertility: "exploring more progressive social values, like creating a shared-parenting norm"

Alternate suggestion: ‘We have to plan a major power cut or ban television, it’s the only hope we’ve got.’

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2000-009.pdf

Michael H 34 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

SLP1: Why do you allow yourself to remove other people's edits, instead of improving them?

Why would you remove material when you are first charged with improving material?

If you believe material is unsourced or original research, why not state {cite} and discuss this on the discussion page.

Don't you believe in good faith by other editors?

In fact, I cited the actual APA memo that states their position is "no official position". And I referenced their website that sells books on PAS and workshops on PAS. All of this is factual, linkable, and points to a non-POV conclusion that the APA does not say there is no such thing as APA, and that they have no official position.

More cites here: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/1109rosenthal.html

http://www.fathersunite.org/Letters%20and%20Articles/Freedom%20from%20Standards.html

The parental alienation syndrome is not listed in The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Critics of PAS are quick to point this out and consider its absence to support arguments that PAS does not exist. The facts are that DSM-IV was published in 1994. When committees were meeting in the early 1990s, there were too few articles in peer-review journals, and too few rulings in courts of law that had recognized PAS, to warrant a submission. Accordingly, I did not submit a proposal at that time. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did anyone else.

DSM-V committees are scheduled to start meetings in 2006, and the projected date of publication of DSM-V is 2010. The DSM-V program coordinator at the American Psychiatric Association has informed me that a PAS file has been set up. This, of course, is good news in that it indicates that the APA is taking PAS seriously.

In short, the material I added was accurate and not original research. It could have used a cleanup, that would have been an appropriate action for you to take.

It is frustrating to add to the wikipedia in good faith and have someone remove the edits without any discussion. I find your actions lazy and ask you to stop and first a) assume good faith, and b) discuss your removals on the discussion page before acting on them.

I ask you to restore my material and clean it up as you may desire.

thank you,

130.76.64.14 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slp1 has worked very hard on this article and it is a result of her (or his) efforts, that the article has been greatly improved. Slp1 has been both very fair and very helpful.

Michael H 34 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hello 130.76.64.14, Welcome to Wikipedia. I removed the follow edit

"Defenders of Fathers point out that the current, official, position of the American Psychological Association on Parental Alienation Syndrome is one of "no position".[69] Since PAS is a relatively newly diagnosed phenomena, it is not unreasonable that the APA has no official position yet. It is noted that while there is no official position from the APA, that the APA Bookstore sells at least one book that describes how to diagnose PAS and determine its severity"Divorce Wars: Interventions With Families in Conflict Elizabeth M. Ellis, PhD; Chapter 8. Parental Alienation Syndrome: A New Challenge for Family Courts", and has offered workshops that also discuss the diagnosis of PAS and how to determine when it does and does not exist."session 133 Complex Issues for Experienced Child Custody Evaluators: An Advanced Seminar"

because it was Original research, as I clearly marked in the edit summary, which you obviously saw. Wikipedia's policies clearly indicate that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You had a good cite for the first part (the no position part) but nothing for the second that does not depend on original research and the specifically the sort of connecting of the dots that is not allowed when writing this encyclopaedia. The exact quote from the OR policy that applied is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position".
Please avoid personal attacks. As you can imagine, I do not appreciate being called lazy and malicious (though you obviously had second thoughts about the malicious part-see my talkpage- for which I thank you!). I'm sure you realize that really is not my job to clean up or improve your edits! Another time it might be a good idea to discuss your suggested edits on the talkpage first, and that would have avoided some frustration on all sides.
As a gesture of good faith, I will readd the part about "no position" to the appropriate part of article, since that is well sourced at present. --Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but thank you Michael! Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is all well sourced and none of it was OR. Gardner discusses specifically why there is nothing in the DSM about it, and that goes right to "it being a relatively new phenomena so it is reasonable there is no official position yet". Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. demonstrates that the APA does in fact sell book(s) on PAS and has workshop(s) on PAS and that goes to refuting the claim that the APA does not believe that PAS exists.

I do think your removal was lazy. And in fact, I do think you had a duty to cleanup the text before removing it, and of discussing the removal before removing it.

[9]

Perfection is not required

With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.

Alternatives include:

   * rephrasing
   * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
   * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
   * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
   * requesting a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false.

This is one of my pet peeves about the wikipedia. That "editors" feel free to piss all over and remove another's contribution when in fact one of the first policies is to make things better and not just remove.

So yeah, I think your edit was lazy and I think you do have a duty to cleanup text you do not like before you remove it.

In this case, you could have added some {cite}s and discussed the issue.

Parenting Time and Parental Alienation Syndrome

I made an edit to this section. Please feel free to edit or remove!

Michael H 34 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Criticism of Social workers and family court judges

This article concerned cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse accusations.

"The Comhairle remains committed to providing the best possible child protection services for children in the Western Isles."

"Plain English translation:'Watch out! Your family is next!'"

Criticism of "child kidnapping" is not reserved for Massachusetts (ironically, the witch trials occurred in Salem, Massachusetts - 1690's I believe).

"Do you know that some of the children kidnapped in The Orkneys, whose parents were proven innocent, have not been returned, as they were legally adopted by their foster-parents, and, due to the long (five years) time of unjust separation, they were adjudged to be so bonded to their new "parents" it was held to be "No longer in the best interests of the child" to be returned to their real families. If you are a member of the media, please, ask your editor if you can get out of the office and investigate this travesty of justice."

http://fathersforlife.org/cps/comhairle.htm

Michael H 34 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Analogy to Salem witch hunts made by fathers' rights organizer and use of the word hysteria:

"Alluding to the recent discovery of 300-year-old court documents in Essex County, Massachusetts, Charalambous drew parallels between the Salem witch trials and the current hysteria surrounding domestic violence. According to Charalambous, we are in the midst of a witch hunt that will appear prominently in historical records three hundred years from now, when our ancestors examine the courts documents of today."

http://www.fathermag.com/news/1782-boston01.shtml

Michael H 34 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Criticism of the government encouragement of false accusations of sexual abuse

Recovered Memory Therapy - A Father’s Story; interview by Robert Mann

http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory

Michael H 34 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Technology and its role - anecdote about global spread of information; "Sexual abuse hysteria"

Men’s Hour Radio Programme has International Impact The following interview by Bob Mann on "The Men’s Hour", was broadcast on Access Radio Monday 13th October. Following the show, Mark posted this transcript on the internet to a group of New Zealanders who regularly discuss men’s issues.

One of them was so impressed that he posted it on "witchut" - a long-running international newsgroup that discusses sexual abuse hysteria. From there it was picked up by a Canadian researcher who sends a digest version of the most interesting articles on witchut to researchers around the world, so by Wednesday morning it was back in New Zealand waiting in Felicity’s e-mail.

The story was also sent to the editor of the Canadian False Memory Society journal, who we hear intends to publish it. It’s good to know our efforts to get the word out about this tragic problem are succeeding.

http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory

Michael H 34 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Criticism of therapists and link to vested interest

These charlatans, these cheats, these defrauders, who have always falsely claimed to be able to read people's minds, simply created another piece of fiction. Another fantasy.

Why?

Power, money, status, court appearance fees, clients, workshops, touchy-feelie groups, salacious gossip, fantasy role playing games, fun, victimhood, friends, media appearances ....

And it put therapists back into the limelight.

http://www.angryharry.com/esShamefulTherapists.htm

Michael H 34 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't know how to do it. Please feel free to archive this section and everything above it.

Thank you, Michael H 34 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Legal recognition of social parents

Note: Members of the fathers' rights movement have expressed concern that legal recognition for social parents may allow social parents to obtain rights at the expense of biological parents.

http://www.gabnet.com/ep/ie/ldcr90815.htm

Michael H 34 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Th link is dead. There is split in the FRM concerning the rights of spouses and the rights of biological parents. I have no citation. Michael H 34 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Unwarranted Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption

Case from Canada:

[10]

Sources

We need to take a serious look at the references for this article. Many of the references are used to try to support original research, and many have nothing to do with the claims made in a particular sentence. --Justine4all 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justine, as I mentioned on your talkpage, I think that in this case father's rights websites are considered appropriate to verify the concerns and claims of the subject see WP:SELFPUB. Also when I have checked in the past, the references have generally been appropriate. Having said that, I agree with your questions about the "Women" section, which seems out of place and to contain non-relevant information for this article. I also agree that the initial section about what caused the rise of the men's rights movement is original research, nicely cited, but original research nonetheless. We need a reliable source that describes the social factors that gave rise to the FRM, not just references to the social factors themselves.
I plan to replace Justine's edits, partly because I think some appropriate references got deleted along the way (by mistake, I am sure) and partly because it is easier (!) given the multiple edits. However, I would like to propose deleting the "rise of the men's rights movement" and "women" sections if the problems described above are not sorted out in a few days.--Slp1 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with:

Background and history

The following is in the section titled "Background and history":

The fathers' rights movement arose in the 1970s as a result of issues regarding custody of the children in association with increased rates of separation and divorce,(reference: http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75570) linked to:

• The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage (ref: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6816)
• The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s making it easier for one spouse to unilaterally initiate divorce (ref: http://law.shu.edu/faculty/fulltime_faculty/maldonso/beyond_economic_fatherhood_aug2005.pdf)
• The willingness and power of family courts to grant majority or sole custody to mothers
• The increase in the financial independence of women (ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article614375.ece)
• Changes to child support laws in the 1980s.(ref: The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws, University of California Press)

I agree that all these things are important as background. In my own view however, the development of the fathers' rights movement began around 1990 - in the US, that's when the Family Support Act of 1988 went into effect. Similar legislation went into effect in other countries around the same time. Things got worse from there. Another important date - 1975, when the Office of Child Support Enforcement was established. Bureacrats in this agency who wanted more power and pay, and a well-paid private sector job to move into, are a very serious part of the problem. The growth in size, budget, and power of this agency is inseparable from the fathers' rights problem. Rogerfgay 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Increased societal problems which are seen as correlated with "fatherlessness".(http://www.gocrc.com/research/index.html)

The fathers' rights movement is related to both the men's rights movement and masculism with some participants seeing it as a corollary to the women's rights and children's rights movements. It is also related to populism, as it often works against perceived government abuses of power. Its advocates see the movement's encouragement of shared parenting as complementary to, and not at odds with, equity feminism's goal of more equal parental involvement by both parents. However, some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society,(ref: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/staff_pages/flood.php) though members of the fathers' rights movement point out that their proposals help excluded mothers and they disagree that any substantial part of the movement is seeking a revival of ‘patriarchy’.(ref: http://www.fnf.org.uk/subs/dfes2004.htm) (ref: http://www.menstuff.org/archives/stoddard.html)

Critics suggest that members of the fathers' rights movement cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems, lobby government for a legislative solution,(ref: Child support Policy in Australia: Back to basics? journal: Family Matters) (ref: "The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws" journal: Social Problems, publisher = University of California Press) while members of the fathers' rights movement claim their opponents use the same techniques.(ref name="Fathers Movement or Family Rights Movement, you decide")

The first reference used (futureofchildren.org) is to an article that is supposed to show that the Father's Rights movement is a direct response to the increase in divorce. However, the article cited does not mention the Father's Rights movement. It talks about the methods courts have used to resolve child custody issues. The problem with the entire first paragraph of this section is that it is trying to make the argument that there is an actual "movement." The paragraph should be re-written to say the following:

The father's rights movement arose in the 1970's. During the 1970's, the rate of divorce increased in America, and as a result, American courts began to use a variety of strategies to resolve child custody issues.(reference: http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75570) Some of the reasons for an increase in the rate of divorce has been attributed by father's rights groups to the following :

• The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage (ref: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6816)
• The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s making it easier for one spouse to unilaterally initiate divorce (ref: http://law.shu.edu/faculty/fulltime_faculty/maldonso/beyond_economic_fatherhood_aug2005.pdf)
• The increase in the financial independence of women (ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article614375.ece)
• Changes to child support laws in the 1980s.(ref: The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws, University of California Press)

Father's rights groups hope to address the following:

• The willingness and power of family courts to grant majority or sole custody to mothers
• Increased societal problems which are seen as correlated with "fatherlessness".(http://www.gocrc.com/research/index.html)

The reference in the last bullet point no longer works - it needs to be replaced.

The second paragraph should be changed to include the following fact checks:

The fathers' rights movement is related to both the men's rights movement and masculism with some participants seeing it as a corollary to the women's rights and children's rights movements. It is also related to populism, as it often works against perceived government abuses of power. Its advocates see the movement's encouragement of shared parenting as complementary to, and not at odds with, equity feminism's goal of more equal parental involvement by both parents. However, some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society,(ref: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/staff_pages/flood.php) though members of the fathers' rights movement point out that their proposals help excluded mothers and they disagree that any substantial part of the movement is seeking a revival of ‘patriarchy’.(ref: http://www.fnf.org.uk/subs/dfes2004.htm) (ref: http://www.menstuff.org/archives/stoddard.html)

These fact checks are important because the article needs to establish objective, scholarly references that reflect these assertions. What makes the father's rights movement a "movement"? The numbers? A cohesive ideology? History? Is there scholarly, objective research to back the above claims up? Who knows?

--Justine4all 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects to this, I'll replace the text tomorrow. --Justine4all 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait a bit longer? I have a few suggestions, but it is late here, so I will need to get back to it tomorrow night sometime.--Slp1 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure! *waiting*--Justine4all 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Justine, for looking at all of this so carefully, as I think that good look at the article will be nothing but positive. Here are my thoughts:
The first paragraph, with or without your excellent revisions, is pure Original Research. As you note, the references source the "causes" mentioned in the paragraph, but none note that they contributed to the rise of the FRM, which makes the whole paragraph synthesis. I have had a quick look for other sources about the rise of the movement, but there are very few out there that would be considered reliable for our purposes. One just says that Wikipedia has a good article on it, which is rather amusing! [11] As a result, I believe the whole paragraph should be deleted in its entirety. A glance at the Maldonado article suggests it may be a useful scholarly source for some other issues about Fathers' rights, including possibly a word or two about its development, which would be good.

I agree with the addition of the fact tags for the second paragraph, since none of it is sourced at all. I think it would be okay to put the fact tags there and see if sources are found for a month or so. If not, it should be deleted too. What do others think? --Slp1 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Since I am unfamiliar with all of the Wikipedia process, would you do the deletion? I'm sure you can document it better than I. --Justine4all 00:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's good! I have come to learn that going slow is a good policy on controversial articles. As some other editors have worked hard on this article, I suggest we give them (and others) another day or so to give comments and suggestions, (or even sources!) before deleting anything. Slp1 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

There are real problems with this section as it has been revamped in the last few days. The statistics that women are more violent toward men in domestic partnerships is an extreme minority view. I'm all for breaking with conventional wisdom, but to claim that women are responsible for the majority of domestic violence instances is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. --Justine4all 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a close look at this section, but I generally agree that the phraseology is point of view, even if the specific arguments are real (and do have some research basis... I forget the name of the researcher, but he subsequently disowned the way his research was being used by the men's movement). Looking back in the history I see what has happened, as two sections have been split and stuff added making it less NPOV. I am currently super busy in my real life, but I have done a bit of research behind the scenes and will try to add some bits and pieces in the next few days. My current focus is the section of women, which is rather weak and has not much to do with the FRM anyway. I have some stuff collected to replace it. BTW, Justine, I think you are doing the right thing by proposing changes and concerns here. It gives a chance to build consensus. --Slp1 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have failed to follow my own advice and have done a bunch of edits well beyond the Domestic Violence section. Hopefully the edit summaries are fairly self-explanatory though.--Slp1 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

Just wanted to post a couple of external links and noticed the notice not to. It looks like there are a couple of external links that may belong in the reference section. Another section might be useful for publications, such as Mens News Daily and a few others that support fathers rights very consistently. I would also like to suggest completed research that shows where child support amounts should actually be; can't post the geocities address, but search for "Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory" Rogerfgay 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section needs a massive pruning. Thanks for your pointers.--Slp1 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

"One law reform submission produced by this organisation presented an agenda strongly supporting the concerns of the non-custodial parent, while other law reform submissions contained agendas sympathetic to the interests of custodial parents, either male or female. Other borderline groups include those such as Women Who Want to be Women or Women and Grandparents Treated Unfairly by the Family Law, who clearly claim to represent neither fathers' interests nor the interests of non-custodial parents and yet present an agenda that is strongly sympathetic to these constituents."

This supports the statement that some women support the rights of non-custodial parents.

Michael H 34 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's why I deleted it:

the statement "Women, particularly the second wives of divorced fathers" was already there and makes clear that some women support the FRM.

Your quote is talking about what are parents' rights groups since they "clearly claim to represent neither fathers' interests nor...". They are listed as "borderline" groups that not really members of the fathers' rights movement based on the definition in this article.

The sentence in quote above supports the proposition that women join "Women who want to be Women". The way it is currently in the article suggests that these women are joining the FRM. The two are different in my view, and I imagine the women concerned would agree (confirmed my the phraseology in the sentence). --Slp1 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is a member of the fathers' rights movement? Women, described as belonging to 'borderline groups' who support parents' rights, thus support fathers' rights despite even their own claims to the contrary. I see your points though and I defer to your good judgement. Michael H 34 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from [[12]].

"According to these numbers, two households -- one providing for the children, the other a "visitor" who does not need to provide anything for the children -- can maintain their pre-divorce standard of living if they are able to raise their collective income by 15%. It is self-evident that it is impossible to create two households out of one with only a 15% increase in income."

Michael H 34 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The reason I deleted it was not because it wasn't cited (or true) but because I didn't think it added to the article much extra from what was already there. We have to be careful not to lurch into advocacy, and there are bit of this article that lean in that direction. It is also presumably very US-specific, which is a problem. Slp1 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the restored sentence is US specific. The following is from the other supporting citation from FACT of Canada:

"In fact, the Guidelines were constructed on the specific assumption that a child will never live in the support-paying parent's home — not for one day a year, not for 39% of the year and not for 50% of the year." Michael H 34 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A citation in the Domestic Violence section ref name=husbandbatt/" generated an error because the information for this reference name was not included in the article. I wondered whether this citation was intended to be the name of the following citation, and so I tried to repair it by combining the two. This was probably not right since the resulting single citation does not support the following sentence:

"Critics point out flaws in the studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scale, and note the selective use of the statistics, since the studies also point out that men have higher rates of the most injurious violence and that women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured than men."

Michael H 34 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You are right about your repair being not quite correct, but not to worry! The ref had been deleted which caused the problem. I have put the citations back the way they were. The various refs from Flood and Sacks support the sentences they were attached to, in my opinion. Slp1 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slp1,

Thanks for fixing that citation. I hope you are doing well.

I restored a citation referencing an article by RADAR. I submit for your consideration the idea that RADAR is a fathers' rights group.

The article includes the following:

A recent report from the American Coalition for Fathers and Children summarizes the situation this way:

"Given definitions of “violence” so broad and subjective as to be meaningless, a presumption of guilt that virtually guarantees conviction and punishment, the suspension of the most basic civil liberties and due process protections such as jury trials, … we conclude that the hysteria generated by the domestic violence industry has no proven basis in fact and that it is little more than a hoax perpetrated on the American public.20"

Best wishes,

Michael H 34 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, you are quite right to return the citation. I did a search for it but somehow didn't find it the first time I looked. I do wonder if page numbers on these long documents would be useful, though. --Slp1 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued problem with original research

Most of the writing under the "Main Issues" section fall into the original research category. I've proposed in the past that this be cleaned up. I will start posting rewrites on the Talk page. The re-write will be in deference to what the citations actually say.--Justine4all 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued problem with original research

Most of the writing under the "Main Issues" section fall into the original research category. I've proposed in the past that this be cleaned up. I will start posting rewrites on the Talk page. The re-write will be in deference to what the citations actually say.--Justine4all 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the category "The Family court system," these references the following references are used for these sentences: "They state that the system is biased against fathers. For example, father's rights groups suggest that courts help mothers secure child custody by granting them initial custody, creating delay and then denying changes to the status quo thus created, and by granting mothers unwarranted temporary restraining orders.":

*http://www.glennsacks.com/national_fatherhood_initiative_ads.htm
*http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmconst/116/11606.htm
*http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville9.html
*http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2005/MC_Gardner_Study-2_050710.htm

The link to the UK parliament publications does not mention "Father's Rights." I believe this falls under the original research category and should be deleted. More importantly, it is not clear to me at all that the term used above "father's rights groups suggest" is precise considering that the references site mostly individual commentators like Glenn Sacks and Lew Rockwell. The only references that uses an "organization" is the one for the fatherhoodcoaltion.org - and this is specifically to cite the "restraining order" issue.--Justine4all 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure of the relevance of the Lew Rockwell reference. --Justine4all 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The link or the material linked to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Fourth Report may have changed.

The following is a link associated with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Fourth Report. One of the FNF reforms was to prevent delay for the purpose of creating a defense of the status quo established by the delay:

[[13]]

Michael H 34 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I switched the links. Here's the previous link for reference:

[[14]]

Michael H 34 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Fathers Rights advocates are naturally at odds with the judiciary as the courts are antagonistic to dads who refuse to ‘go along with the program’ in child custody litigation. Judges often act outside the law to punish these dads by criminalizing them through contempt powers and usurious child support orders that cannot be met."

[[15]]

Michael H 34 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

comment Justine4all has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Slp1 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome

Has the following been linked to the fathers' rights movement? Should it be removed?

and that it has been rejected by some members of the legal community, Critics claim that Parental Alienation Syndrome can be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.

Michael H 34 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I added attribution to critics of the syndrome. Michael H 34 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The Early Buzz on the Fathers' Rights Movement !

[16]

"When Woman is Boss"

"Colliers, January 30, 1926"

"The life of the bee will be the life of our race, says Nikola Tesla, world-famed scientist."

"A NEW sex order is coming--with the female as superior. You will communicate instantly by simple vest-pocket equipment...."

"The Queen is the Center of Life"

"BUT the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress."

"The acquisition of new fields of endeavor by women, their gradual usurpation of leadership, will dull and finally dissipate feminine sensibilities, will choke the maternal instinct, so that marriage and motherhood may become abhorrent and human civilization draw closer and closer to the perfect civilization of the bee."

"Imagination falters at the prospect of human analogy to this mysterious and superbly dedicated civilization of the bee; but when we consider how the human instinct for race perpetuation dominates life in its normal and exaggerated and perverse manifestations, there is ironic justice in the possibility that this instinct, with the continuing intellectual advance of women, may be finally expressed after the manner of the bee, though it will take centuries to break down the habits and customs of peoples that bar the way to such a simiply [sic] and scientifically ordered civilization...."

"We have seen a beginning of this in the United States. In Wisconsin the sterilization of confirmed criminals and pre-marriage examination of males is required by law, while the doctrine of eugenics is now boldly preached where a few decades ago its advocacy was a statutory offense."

Michael H 34 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

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)

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. Michael H 34 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

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: [[17]] 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

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)

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)

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)

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." [18] 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 [19].

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 [20], 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 [21] 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:

[22] 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

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.

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: [[23]] Michael H 34 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

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." [24]

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. [25] 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. [26] Michael H 34 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34 Citation (FRAs campaign for lesbian social mothers.) Rutland Herald and others: [27] 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 [28] and [29] 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

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

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): [30] Michael H 34 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

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)

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)

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.

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."

[31]

This article appears on the ACFC website as well: [32] 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)

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 [33] --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 [34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael H 34 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [35]). 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

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

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 [36] [37] and even a June 2007 Glenn Sacks post,[38](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 [39]"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. [40] [41] and on the FR by country page you did more: [42] and on the FR's rights in the US, this one [43] 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, [44] 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 [45] "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)