Jump to content

Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Civil rights movement

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"profit from the policies"

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

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

Background and History - recent edits

Slp1: Good job! Well done!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did these authors provide an example of this social engineering?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

buying a baby

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

External Links At End Of Article

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

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

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

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

Removed Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N P O V declaration.

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

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

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

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

New background and history section

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

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

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

Attribution

Stephen Baskerville is clearly a member of the fathers' rights movement and as the author of Taken Into Custody, The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family and as a former president of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, he clearly speaks for many members of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The external links critical are problematic from my mind, here's why:

--The Flood and I believe the Trish Wilson links have alrady beend iscussed. Read a bit above your post please. NeoApsara (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trish Wilson's comment seems to be addressed by the Manual of Style, which puts the standard appendicies in a specific order (here). If there's archived discussion, I'll try a quick review when I've the time, but a link directly to a section in the archive would be handier. WLU (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the external links sections needs pruning, but disagree with WLU's decision to delete all the 'critical' ones and not to touch the 'pro' ones, some of which are just as much advocacy and POV as the ones deleted. In any case, my view is that they should not be divided into two sections, and that Flood's website at least (a published academic in the field) offers important additional information that fully meets WP:EL --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
True enough, I looked over the last three "pro" and the were pretty crappy - two blog entries and some senate testimony that wasn't so grossly long it couldn't be used as a reference. Removed, it's just the DMOZ now. Flood could be supported per WP:EL, if it's judged reliable (don't know if he's famous enough to make the RS loophole), but it's primarily a source; it's better linked as an inline citation in my mind. WLU (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough to delete them all: I'm not a great fan of EL farms anyway, and this way the temptation to add more is gone. However, perhaps it's worth noting however that EL do not need to meet WP:RS criteria in terms of reliability etc needed for sourcing the text, and self-published sources can be included there. Having said that, Flood, as an academic who has written extensively in the field [1],[2][3] in my opinion easily meets the criteria for the reliability of self-published by an expert.Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
On father's rights? A scholar can be notable for one field, but not qualify for another. I don't know 'cause I haven't looked into it; cursorily the stuff on masculinity suggests yes. I'd still rather avoid SPS if possible, are they redundant to a) anything else flood has written or b) anything anyone else has written? And do they represent the scholarly majority or is it undue weight to place a lot of emphasis or external linking on his opinion? Again, I'm asking 'cause I don't know (and haven't looked into it, they're my standard concerns for self published sources). WLU (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if you are talking about EL links still, where this doesn't apply in any case. But anyway, I would strongly argue that Flood's extensive work in Masculinity, men's movements and violence including a recent chapter in this book [4] entitled "What's wrong with fathers' rights?" makes him an SPS expert in the field. Note that Glenn Sacks' books etc on men's rights have also been used to suggest that his blogs can be used here (as they are). I am very much less convinced by Phyllis Schlafly, whose webposts are also being used to support citations in the text (and there are others). User:Cailil makes more or less exactly the same point above about what being sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.[5] However also note that the some of these citations are often being used to cite the "positions/opinions" of FRM supporters/critics for example, so that WP:SELFQUEST comes into play too. --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough, and to answer another of your questions, I gave up editing this page because of the resistance of pro-FRM editors to the use of scholarly resources such as [6]. Unfortunately there is a preference to use this article as a soapbox (for and against) and to use advocacy texts such as Baskerville etc extensively. And you only need to read the comments on this page to see the extent of the problem: several editors believe that scholarly opinions that somehow "belittle" or are in "opposition of the movements actions" should not be included at all. --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{Bing!}Horse pucky, scholarly sources are always the best choice for all articles. If you're talking about UNDUE regards the ELs, UNDUE does cover links as well (last sentence, second paragraph, "This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well"). If Flood's work is mainstream and scholarly, I still think those former links are better as sources - as a brief web-page and a paragraph, they'd easily be integrated if there's anything worth saying I think. Schafly (of Conservapedia fame?) is out unless published in a reliable source. I've not the time right now or in general to really look into it, but I'll see if I can make the time. Baskerville seems very over-cited throughout the page and the use of citation templates in general is quite poor. I'll try to address if I've the time. WLU (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes: I am not arguing in any way for the return of the external links section, and instead am looking at reliable sourcing for the article itself. I agree that integrating important points and references into the article is to be preferred. As you say, and as I have argued here in the past, scholarly sources are clearly the best choices; unfortunately at one point the endless objections about any addition from them that could possibly be construed as anti-FR became too tedious. "Pro" edits from the same sources were welcomed, of course! Some fresh, independent eyes are always welcome; a pruning and a reworking seems in order to me, as well as improvements to the citation style that you mention.Slp1 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael H has restored this section that I deleted yesterday claiming that it is not based on US information alone. Actually it is a classic example of Original Research and Synthesis entirely based on US court cases and as such doubly inappropriate. Please do not restore it without getting consensus here that it is an appropriate addition.Slp1 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the information had not been cited, it would have been removed for this reason. Since the information had been cited, it had to based on the law of some country. I disagree that the information is relevant to the US only, and removed the sentences that applied only to the US. Even if you are correct that this is OR and SYN, it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article. The information is clearly and obviously relevant background information, and more than one person believes this to be true because I am not the original contributor of this information. I am restoring it. Please do not delete this information without getting a consensus that the cited information should be removed. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Actually Original research is a non-negotiable core policy of Wikipedia and thus "it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article" is 100% incorrect. Note the nutshell version of this policy "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", which this does: all the references are to court decisions, and there is not a single secondary or tertiary source making the claims in the paragraph.WP:PSTS And since US Court decisions only apply to the US, and Common Law is only used in certain parts of the world (ex British colonies in the main) then this section also does not represent a global perspective as we need to do in this article. I will leave you to remove the section this time; if you insist on maintaining your position that this original synthesis of primary sources is appropriate for the article I am certainly happy to post an inquiry on No original research noticeboard and get the opinion of other editors. And note also that I am not the only one who disagrees with this text being added.[7] (and see her post above). --Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Statements in the citations like "i.e., no longer requiring courts of criminal jurisdiction for divorce. And to confirm this assertion", the use of court cases as sources (court cases would be primary documents), the gross over-focus on the United States (WP:CSB), improper directions like "For additional information about changes in the law, please see "No-fault divorce" below." and the statement "Even if you are correct that this is OR and SYN, it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article" all suggest a revert is in order. Done. WLU (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is clear. Removing the information is okay by me. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Parents Rights

"Yet a recent Urban Institute study found that the Smith case typifies the way the foster care system harms children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers. " Michael H 34 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H's recent edits

Once again, Michael H has taken upon himself to delete well-sourced information from highly reliable sources without discussion, apparently because he does not agree with the content[8], [9] [10] etc. Note this edit summary in particular, which "(Fathers can't be parents? Why?)" He also claims the several of the additions are "unsourced" or "not attributed" which they clearly are, given the citations following. If there are dead links, then that does not justify deletion of the information as he appears to claim here.[11] Where does it say in any policy or guidelines that reliable sources should be removed because the number of citations given introduces bias? [12] Unfortunately this is not the only page where these problems of editing (COI, POV, Original reserch) have surfaced. See for example [13] but there are others. Michael, please restore the well-sourced material you deleted. It may be that the phrasing of some could be improved to increase ease of understanding. It is clear, for example, that you are misunderstanding some of the sentences, and I am sure we can make them clearer if that it is the case. But let's discuss the problems here first. Wholesale deletion of well-sourced information from scholarly texts is not the answer. --Slp1 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have shown that Richard Collier's opinions are quoted and supported by critics of the fathers' rights movement. Roger Gay has stated that he is biased. You claim that Richard Collier's work is scholarly. That is your opinion and I disagree with you.

If Richard Collier states that fathers are encouraged by the government to have more contact with their children, then he doesn't even know what the fathers' rights movement is. In my opinion, several of the edits that you made are very confusing for readers of this article. Just because a sentence exists in a book (scholarly or not) doesn't mean that the sentence is relevant for an article.

The opinion that men are not interested in custody of their children is stated twice in this article.

The idea that fathers love their children is not mentioned. I recall that on this page, you have written that such a statement would be too biased for this article. 63.107.135.125 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

With all due respect, Michael...
  • Collier and Sheldon are academics; their book is the result of an academic conference held at the Keele University [14]; it was published by Hart Publishing, a publisher of academic law books based in Oxford [15] and according to WorldCat is held at 173 University libraries around the world [16]. I think it is beyond doubt that this book is a reliable academic source, but if you really disagree, make a post at WP:RSN and I will be happy to abide by the result.
  • "If Richard Collier states that fathers are encouraged by the government to have more contact with their children, then he doesn't even know what the fathers' rights movement is." "Roger Gay has stated that [Collier]] is biased." Your personal opinion of Collier and his ideas is irrelevant as is that of electrical engineer-come-fathers' rights activist Roger Gay, who, you will remember got blocked here for disruptive, POV pushing edits [17] And your disagreement with Collier's opinion/ideas doesn't give you the license to delete them. The key policy here is WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".
  • You are on stronger ground when you say that the information in the article needs to be relevant and clear. I absolutely fail to see how the sourced sections such as [18][19] I added are not relevant but as I mentioned above, I am open to the idea that they need to be clearer. Once again, deleting them is not the solution this problem. Explain what is confusing on the talkpage and editors can work together to clarify the text.
  • "The opinion that men are not interested in custody of their children is stated twice in this article". Please state your evidence for this; I don't see this opinion stated anywhere at all. But anyway, big deal, if it is sourced reliably. What is your policy-based issue with having a statement like this in the article twice? Personally disagreeing with it is not enough. Once again "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".
  • "The idea that fathers love their children is not mentioned". No it isn't, because including such a truism would be a classic example of the use of a rhetorical device to advocate a POV and thus totally contrary to WP policy. WP is not a place where you can do this, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and after 21 months on WP you must surely know this. --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Big deal? Just because a sentence exists in a book (scholarly or not) doesn't mean that the sentence is relevant for an article. The key Wikipedia policy is not verifiability, it is consensus.

I consider the unexplained and indefensible statement: "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be an extreme pollution of this article and by far the worst edit that I have ever encountered in all of my experience with Wikipedia, vandalism included. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Where on earth do you get the idea that consensus is Wikipedia's key policy? It isn't. It is one of five policies about how to work (or not to work) with others. And then there are the four policies about content, which is what we are actually talking about here, as well as two global ones. In fact, even if you did, for example, get a consensus about something on this talk page it does not and cannot overrule the wider consensus about policies such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc that have been determined by the site. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale".WP:CON
Like I said, it is irrelevant whether you find the statement ""Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be "indefensible", "an extreme pollution" or the "worst edit" ever, unless you can produce some policy-based reasons for your objection to it.
I will, however, try to explain briefly the sentence more clearly to you.
In the 19th and early 20th century separation and divorce was possible but only on the grounds of matrimonial fault (violence, adultery etc) and at the beginning of this period giving custody to fathers was generally assumed. With time this tendency weakened with the "ideology of mother love", and during the early years of the 20th century it gradually became assumed that mothers would get custody (though not always if the mother had committed some 'fault' eg. adultery). Women forever remained economically dependent and tied to men after divorce during this period.
From about 1960s onward things changed: divorce was more easily available and increased dramatically and living together became more common. The concept of the "clean break" or "no fault" divorce arose, with the idea that people could and should move on from mistakes and be able to start again with their lives. As compared to pre-1950s law, (and it is this comparison that is important) the family law which developed from the 1960s on introduced these 'clean break' notions into law. But these "clean break" legal changes also affected fathers contact with their children. They gave the (financial, emotional??) ability and license for women who wished to have limited contact with their former husbands to have a "clean break" and do just that. And vice versa of course. However, countries also introduced increasingly extensive legal means to force fathers to pay child support payments in arrears, requiring in a very practical way, fathers to be involved with their children that they might not be seeing. Laws have also moved towards trying to get parents to sort out disagreements themselves rather than using the courts and to interpret the "best interest of the child" doctrine to mean that the child needs regular access to both parents. Once again the law and legal regulation have in theory at least increased the expected role of fathers as compared to pre-1950s law.
I don't necessarily expect you to agree with this because I am sure it is not your own, probably very painful, experience. But we are not writing about your personal experience but about the reasons why the fathers rights movement arose. Hopefully you understand that there is thinking and evidence behind the statement given. It has been sourced to an reliable academic source. There have been changes in legal regulations which expect fathers to be more involved, though perhaps not as much as you would desire, or in the ways you would desire, I'm guessing. --Slp1 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I agree that Verifiability is not Wikipedia's key policy.

My personal experiences are irrelevant, and I consider any suggestions that I am writing "about my personal experiences" (I have never been divorced and I live with my wife and children) as an attempt to diminish the weight of my views, similar to the attempt (above) to diminish the weight of Roger Gay's view through name calling.

I continue to consider the phrase: "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be an awful and inappropriate edit for this article. Changes in legal regulations have separated fathers and children.

In fact, you removed from this article some of the changes in law that are pertinent to the eventual formation of the fathers' rights movement.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" does not explain how "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved."

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" is inappropriate because legal regulations do not expect anything. Legal regulations, such as no-fault divorce, can create or reinforce societal norms.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" (the same legal regulations that provide for "visitation time") has not been connected to "the reasons why the fathers' rights movement arose." I have strong concerns that such a connection would be the result of synthesis, and that such a connection would be given undue weight.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" is based on a point of view and it is unattributed. This point of view implies that men have been less involved with their children, and that men would "break clean" from their children in the absence of legal regulations. The point of view is biased against fathers and biased for government regulations.

The "war" on fathers, marriage and the family and the emergence of the fathers' rights movement is the result of outcomes associated with changes in legal regulations that allow fathers (and some mothers) to be separated from their children, and this article would be greatly improved if this idea was made perfectly clear to the reader. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

  • First let me apologize for incorrectly guessing the reason for your strong opinions on this article. I am very sorry for my error.
  • Second, I also apologize for misleading you above when I said "the key policy here is verifiability". I used "key" in the sense of "most relevant" and "here" as "in this situation", and was trying to convey "the most relevant policy in this situation is verifiability", not that verifiability is the "key" policy on WP as a whole. I have only just realized the ambiguity of my remark.
  • Third, yes I did delete a chunk of US-centric Original Research and synthesis, and when you reverted User:WLU deleted it again, concurring with my view that it was inappropriate. See [20] for details
  • Fourth, the disputed sentence is "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers at a time when, in certain ways, it is more difficult for them to do so due to increased divorce and separation. refs given Collier, R; Sheldon S (2006). Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective. Hart Publishing and Unfamiliar territory: The issue of a father's rights and responsibilities covers more than just the media-highlighted subject of access to his children, The Guardian,2006-11-01. It is not clear to me why you quote part of this sentence and then provide four criticisms of a phrase "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" that has never been suggested for inclusion. To respond as best I can therefore...
Comment 1: You would like more explanation of the legal changes? Here are some useful references, all of which support the idea that the post 1950s legal changes including no-fault and best interests of the child legislation (among others) changed the assumption regarding the participation of fathers in bringing up their children as compared to previous legislation
  • [21] Divorce in Psychosocial Perspective: Theory and Research, Josef Guttmann, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1993)
  • [22] Silent Revolution, Herbert Jacob, University of Chicago Press 1988
  • [23] The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform, Martha Fineman, University of Chicago Press, 1991
  • [24] Changing Families, Changing Responsibilities: Family Obligations Following Divorce and Remarriage, Lawrence H. Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999
Comment 2. The proposed sentence doesn't include the word "expect", so your comment objecting to the word appears moot.
Comment 3. It could only be original synthesis if I had put two separate sources together to form a new original thought or idea. But I didn't. The entire thought comes from Collier and Sheldon, "The convergence of cultural and legal exhortations for men to be more involved fathers with the greater fragility of their connections to their children is one which has ploughed fertile ground for the growth of fathers' rights agendas." Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective p12 and The findings of therapeutic, psychological and sociological research suggest a qualitative shift in many men's emotional relationships with their children and commitments to "family life". Society is demanding that men become more involved as fathers precisely at a time when, in certain respects, it is more difficult for them to do so. The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations. from the Guardian article. You will also note both connect these comments directly to the issue of fathers' rights movements and why it has grown and developed.
Comment 4: the actual proposed sentence "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers at a time when...." is, contrary to what you say, carefully attributed to two scholars in the field, and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available" WP:V. Your other critiques appear to be related to the sentence not even proposed for inclusion.
Your final comment was"The "war" on fathers, marriage and the family and the emergence of the fathers' rights movement is the result of outcomes associated with changes in legal regulations that allow fathers (and some mothers) to be separated from their children, and this article would be greatly improved if this idea was made perfectly clear to the reader. Sadly I believe this comment cuts to the quick of this dispute about your deletion of well-sourced sentences; your ongoing desire (despite protests here and on other talkpages by several editors) to promote your POV about the Fathers' rights movement and other related subjects. We are not and cannot be a soapbox for you to make anything "perfectly clear to the reader" about the ""war" on fathers, marriage and the family."
I think it is time for a third opinion --Slp1 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, you apologized for the wrong reason. You could have apologized for trying to diminish the weight of my view based on irrelevant suppositions. Yet, you have now accused me of using Wikipedia as a "soapbox...to make [something] 'perfectly clear to the reader'", which in my view is an improvement of the article, and something that I am encouraged to do. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please read what I wrote above. "I don't necessarily expect you to agree with this [explanation of divorce laws etc] because I am sure it is not your own, probably very painful, experience". It has nothing to do with the weight of your views on this article, and everything to do with trying to show some understanding/empathy for what might lead you to have difficulty accepting more mainstream views of divorce law etc. Misplaced it appears, but it was kindly meant.
And yes, I do think that while it is an admirable goal to make this article as clear as possible, it is notc appropriate to seek to use WP to attempt to mold this article to your personal opinions by arguing to include original research and synthesis because it "improves the article" (see [25]), deleting sourced information you dislike as we have been discussing above, and introducing your own commentary and opinions as noted in the edit I discuss immediately below this.--Slp1 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit [26] Michael claims to be deleting bias because "men's relationships with their children have not always been fragile". Not only does this passage not state that men`s relationships with their children have ever been fragile, but in fact he is deleting the sourced opinions of the "Other commentators" mentioned at the start of the sentence and apparently introducing his own opinion that demographic changes etc have "separated fathers and children". His error is somewhat understandable given the fact there were no citations for that section of the article at the time of his edit. He had deleted them here [27]as part of the disputed deletions above. I have restored the sourced opinion --Slp1 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I ask rhetorically, Why did you attempt to diminish the weight of my views by stating that I am not "mainstream?"
It is not "opinion" that divorce has separated fathers and children.
I replaced the words "men's relationships" with "fathers' bonds", which more accurately reflected the cited authors' words: "paternal bonds." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Thank you for accepting the apology and for your useful recent edit to the article. I won't be drawn into the Strawmen arguments and misleading rhetorical question in the rest of your post. I have never stated that you are not "mainstream", and discussing the truth (or otherwise) of the statement "divorce separates fathers and children" is not relevant or necessary for our purposes. The issue with that edit, as you know, was that you introduced unsourced information into the article.--Slp1 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of precision above. I agree that you did not call me "not mainstream." You stated that the viewpoints of others are "more mainstream." It is with respect and kindness that I note that what you consider to be "more mainstream" is based on your point of view. 63.107.135.125 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Not really, I'm afraid; the "more mainstream" view of the history of divorce law can be determined more empirically than you suggest, by consulting multiple reference texts and books and seeing what they say, just as I did above. But this is off topic, I fear.--Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Richard Collier is not "more mainstream." Roger Gay already noted above that Richard Collier argues against fathers' rights. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Please read what I say. I didn't mention Richard Collier; I said that I consulted multiple reference texts about the history of divorce law. The references I consulted are linked to above.--Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All of the controversial edits (these edits introduced extreme bias into the article in my view and Roger Gay's view) are sourced by Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon.
  • the unclear "new victims" phrase introduced bias
  • the completely unexplained phrase "when they cannot" [parent] introduced innuendo about fathers (at least this innuendo was removed through clarification)
  • the still unexplained and confusing phrase about how "legal regulations" encourage fathers to become more involved as parents 63.107.135.125 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
And yet it is interesting, isn't it, that there is other information in this article cited to Collier and Sheldon book that you have no objection to. There is material you like of theirs and material you don't. Isn't it possible that they, as academics, may have a more neutral, nuanced view of the movement, than you, as an admitted supporter does? But if your issue really is the clarity of the sentences, then, as I have said several times above, let's work on doing that just that. --Slp1 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
...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)

Michael H 34 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Once Roger Gay as become an "established expert on the topic of the article" by having relevant work "published by reliable third-party publications" WP:V we can include his original research and opinion in the article. But not now. Sorry.--Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
SLP1's opinion here is dismissive of the opinion of another editor. Furthermore it is not appropriate for you to accuse me of molding this article. I refrain from saying the same about you. It is unwelcoming. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Dismissive, perhaps. But with good reason, I fear. Roger Gay's opinions that reliably sourced academic viewpoints should not be included in the article because he finds them a "biased pov" is totally contrary to WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. And his statement that "the inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov" is a total non-sequitur in WP terms. --Slp1 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to state that society "encourages fathers to be more involved...", but it is absolutely absurd POV that legal regulations establishing no-fault divorce, the best interest of the child standard based on decisions made by government officials rather than parents, and one-parent custody with visitation for the other parent can be painted as "encouraging fathers to be more involved..." because some 14% "visitation" time, rather than zero visitation time, is "fobbed" (the description I have seen used by one member of the fathers' rights movement) on fathers.

Stephen Baskerville has proposed that the influence of social engineers on government policy be reduced, and Richard Collier, the author of the proposed POV edit, is considered a social engineer.

I question why this edit should be included in this article. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H 34 has reverted the edit of User: Advocate70, an independent editor (and a WP:Third Opinion giver apparently,) who had restored some of the disputed content determining that it was well sourced and reliable.[[28] In his edit summary Michael claims again that he is removing bias. In fact, what he has done, yet again, is to remove the clearly attributed and sourced opinions of a reliable academic source (Collier and Sheldon) The sentence even begins "They [other commentators] also view....." Michael, you cannot delete attributed opinions that you consider biased from the article. Read the sentence carefully... nobody is saying that C and S are right in their opinions but they do have the right to their opinion in this article. You cannot delete content because you disagree with their opinions. Note this from WP:NPOV policy "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." --Slp1 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I politely disagree.

I am encouraged to delete extremely bad content. Including an edit simply because it is reliably sourced is what is completely not justified. It is indefensible. The edit that was removed was insufficiently attributed, extremely vague and as a result, extremely confusing for readers.

Whether or not I disagree with Collier's opinion about legal regulations is irrelevant. I disagree with Michael Flood's opinions, but I made them more clear to the reader. Michael Flood's opinions are well attributed.

A series of edits, all based on the same source (Collier and Sheldon), have been very questionable.

  • the unclear "new victims" phrase introduced bias about fathers
  • the completely unexplained phrase about fathers in a previous version of the proposed edit: "...legal regulations encourage fathers to parent when they cannot." introduced innuendo and bias about fathers into the article (To be fair, at least this innuendo has been removed in the proposed edit through clarification. However, a prior version of the proposed edit had no attribution for the opinion.)
  • The proposed edit is still extremely vague with respect to how legal regulations encourage. It is indefensible.

The proposed edit is horrible. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 Michael H 34 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I am unclear what you are saying, Michael. Are you saying that you "politely disagree" with WP policy? Because you have responded to a quote from NPOV saying that you cannot simply delete sourced content on "pov" grounds, (and in this case even clearly indicated as an opinion) by saying you and politely disagree and immediately (yet again) that the disputed sentences are biased (ie of POV). You also mention that the sentences are unclear, which is reasonable. Once again, if clarity is really your concern we can work on that.
BTW I note that User: Advocate70 has restored his/her edit. I agree with this as it is a reliably sourced, notable academic view. Please do not delete it again.--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I politely disagree with you. Verifiability does not trump all other Wikipedia policies. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Another strawman. Who said it did? --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you never said this. However, based on your comments on this page, I personally believe that this is your view. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I have reworked the section. The proposed edit has been retained in a more acceptable form. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Acceptable to you but not to me, unfortunately. Collier and Sheldon are not sociologists but law professors. I have reworked the sentence again to fit the sources given. Since these comments are to be attributed to them specifically, let's have their views. BTW, I find it fascinating that attribution to specific authors is required by you for many of the ideas you consider critical (e.g. Collier, Sheldon, Flood, Coltrane etc), while pro-father's rights writers, such Baskerville, are often allowed to opine on the subject without attribution at all.
I have deleted this addition [29], which can be found here [[30]. The book is not referring to the FRM at all at this point, and is instead talks about the increased interest in custody among men. I don't doubt, personally, that the two are related, but the authors don't make that connection so neither can we. It would be WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNT to include this commentary. The edit was a word for word copy of the original text, making it a copyright violation too, though of course this could be easily fixed if it wasn't for the Original Research problem. --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Frustration restored instead of dissonance: dissonance means inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs. Neither is really present here. The authors characterize fathers as having uniform beliefs and a desire to have uniformity between their beliefs and their actions, but they are prevented in the second case by factors caused by legal and social structures. It is this frustration and its subsequent motivation of the movement to which the authors refer. I think that word gives a better sense of the author's thrust.

As for the no-fault proposal, I think that is quite interesting and adds much to the article, Michael H, consider restoring it.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Advocate/Olympian (you had me confused there!). I was trying to fix an otherwise unwieldy sentence, actually removing the unwieldly part and keeping the "frustration" works just fine.--Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael H. You might want to read WP:LEAD. The lead is the place to summarize the article, not an introduction. So all the discussion about civil rights vs social movements and your latest edit [31] are not appropriate for the lead since they aren't mentioned in the text. The lead must of course also be of NPOV, which in my view it clearly isn't at present, particularly with your latest addition. BTW, I think it is too bad that you reverted Advocate70 again here [32] --Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit [33] is well attributed and therefore the article retains a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 I have moved the new sentence from the lead. However, the discussion about civil rights vs social movements is necessary for the lead. It is the definition of the article.Michael H 34 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I welcome Advocate70's input. The stylistic changes in this edit [34] reduced the neutrality of the article in favor of fathers' rights through the change in attribution. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Question about WP 3O request

A request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion was listed four days ago. Has this dispute been resolved by the participants or should it remain listed? (I will watchlist this page for replies.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would still very much like a third opinion.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Michael H 34's 21:49 UTC through 22:41 UTC (inclusive) 14 September 2008 edits comply with this encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy rather than appearing to argue from the position of advocacy of the view of any organization (for example, "state" conveys the neutrality which "point out" does not).

I have read the discussion above and, frankly, if anyone asked me for a concise summary of the past ten days' dispute, I could not provide one, but the MH edits I have reviewed look encyclopedic to me.

If either or both of you wish to post a brief summary (no more than one or two sentences each) of any unresolved aspects of the dispute, please do so below. — Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I suppose it might have been easier if someone had dropped by a bit faster when I actually posted the third opinion request! Oh well. One of the initial deletions of material appears resolved. Remaining is the question of whether the material in these deletions [35] [36] should be restored. They appear to be well-sourced and in fact I can add another academic reference [37] to support the first of the two. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The original issue has been resolved. The phrase "...legal regulations encourage fathers to be more involved as parents" was extremely vague, highly biased, confusing for readers and absolutely completely unnecessary for the primary point of the sentence. In my commentary, I noted that legal regulations are a part of society. The original edit also lacked attribution.
Summary of the new issues - I apologize that this is more than two sentences
I was responsible for this edit: [38] I believe that this edit was a good one.
The phrase "family law has swung to far" is overly vague and adds nothing to the article. Nearly a year ago on this page, editor Roger Gay also objected to this phrase noting that "[the characterization of] the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias." It turns out that the source for the sentence, Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon, are law professors.
The phrase "new victims" is particularly objectionable. It is belittling of father' rights and highly biased. It implies that members of the fathers' rights groups claim victimhood, a very loaded phrase. It is unbelievable to me that members of fathers' rights groups state something that would imply that they claim victimhood. In my view, the sentence includes false attribution. Fathers' rights groups do not claim that they are the new victims (and all that these loaded words imply). I have noted that verifiability does not trump all other Wikipedia policies and therefore I ask editors, what is the purpose of including this phrase?
It is ironic to me that Slp1 deleted a well-sourced sentence about women in the fathers' rights movement in the very same edit that Slp1 states that well-sourced material should be restored based on the fact that it is well sourced. It is additionally ironic because I have not seen any other reason for including the "new victim" sentence except for its verifiability.
The American Coalition of Fathers and Children, the largest shared parenting group in the world, was founded by a woman and I have read that about half of its members are women.
The sentence implying a "diminished advantage for fathers" and "these groups are claiming victimhood" besides being biased add no value to the article and in my view, the sentence should not be included. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
This is the other edit that Slp1 has asked for a third party opinion: [39] not this one from above[40], in which two intermediate versions are not shown. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Actually Michael, I did not delete the information about women in the movement. Look carefully at the bottom of the edit you deleted, it was always there.[41]--Slp1 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that you did not delete the information about women in the movement, and I apologize for my mistake. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The crux of the question as far as I am concerned is whether claims of "bias" or "not adding anything" etc by an editor is enough to delete the analysis of multiple academics from reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, verifiability does not trump all other Wikipedia policies. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Once again, nobody has said it does. In fact, WP:V is the least of it. There's WP:NPOV "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV", and "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source"; there's WP:NOR which says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers"which these references all are. And finally there is WP:SOAP "an article can report objectively about [advocacy etc], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." You have cannot simply delete reliably sourced information, just because you view it as "biased". --Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

  1. New victims phrase. I think it can be included. It is well sourced with academic references and provides a specific reason for the increasing presence of fathers' rights group. To me, the current wording makes it reasonably clear that family law has not necessarily swung in the opposite directions but that there are some groups that feel that it might have and that this may be why the we have now have fathers' rights groups.
  1. It is not clear to me which particular statement is the second bone (of contention). Assuming it is Glenn Sacks, a prominent fathers' rights activist, has criticized persons he has called "the lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement", who describe the perpetrators of violent crimes against family court judges and others as "some sort of freedom fighters."[19], I feel that this is a borderline include. It is in context and directly refers to the Fathers' rights activists in various countries have been accused and/or convicted of criminal activities, including stalking and harassment text before it and, clearly, the lunatic fringe in question is the people convicted of criminal etc activities. However, a lot rides on Glenn Sacks. Is he prominent enough (was he the President or whatever of a major group, does he do the talking head bit on tv, etc.) for the comment to be included as a supporting comment? All in all, I'm not sure the quote adds a whole lot to the text so, unless Mr Sacks is notable, I'd consider dropping it. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(If I got the wrong statement, point me to the right one and I'll take a crack at it. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
(Did I mention that I read the article and thought it very well written? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
Thanks RegentsPark for your opinion/ Funnily enough I was busy finding more reliable sources that concur with the men as victims motif described by Collier and Sheldon, including some father's rights groups themselves. I list them here for my own future reference. [42][43] You seem to be in agreement with WLU above that the Glenn Sacks part should go (and in fact WLU deleted it a while ago), but actually that wasn't part of the dispute, really. Sacks is a prominent FR activist in the US at least, and he was responding to the actual bone of contention here, which is the deletion of the mention of the word "murder" after stalking and harassment, referring to the murder committed by Darren Mack a FR Activist, which received some publicity, and was the cause of some controversy because various FR people praised his actions. see [44] This was the 'lunatic fringe' that Sacks is referring to. I must say I rather liked the little Sacks section, but it was totally without context without the detail regarding the seriousness of the charge involved.--Slp1 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Me, I never advocate murder! Like I said, despite the differences between the editors, or perhaps because of these differences, the article is excellent! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Slp1 has changed one of the elements in dispute in the 3rd party opinion that Slp1 requested. Slp1's dispute had been with the edit of WLU.
This is the other edit that Slp1 has asked for a third party opinion: [45] not this one from above[46], in which two intermediate versions are not shown.
Yes, Glenn Sacks is a prominent member of the fathers' rights movement and his views are notable.
It is synthesis to connect Darren Mack to the fathers' rights movement based on his attendance at one or more meetings. I also disagree with Slp1 with respect to Glenn Sack's statement being totally without context.
These sources do not serve as a second source for the Collier "new victim" sentence. [47][48]
The "new victims" sentence has at least two major problems: (1) the implication of diminished advantage from the phrase "family law has swung to far" is commentary about family law and not about the fathers' rights movement at all, (2) the "new victims" phrase artificially bolsters the implication of diminished advantage. Who were old victims? Aren't there always some victims? These are questions that arise from this overly vague phrase "new victims."
These problems are compounded by the false attribution.
The "claims of victimhood" statement in [49] shows bias on the part of the author, but "claims of victimhood" is not the same as "new victims."
There is nothing about "new victims" here either: [50]. It is true that Mark Charalambous stated that men are victims, but men are not "such groups" [fathers' rights groups].
I wonder if the "new victim" sentence was written for the law professors' book flap. Michael H 34 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
What rot, Michael, on multiple fronts. The edits I asked for a third opinion on have always been your edits, and nothing to do with WLU's. Check them above. The "new victim" statement does not come from the book flap, as you would find out if you actually read the book. As for the rest, I wasted enough time on contradicting your arguments. I don't have time at present, but I will be restoring versions of the sentences proposed in a few days or so. I promise I will take to heart some of the concerns you have expressed here when I do so. --Slp1 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Still, it wouldn't surprise me if the "new victim" sentence did appear on the book flap of the lawyers' book.
Slp1: "The edits I asked for a third opinion on have always been your edits, and nothing to do with WLU's. Check them above." This is completely untrue. Removing Glenn Sack's statement about the lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement was WLU's edit. It was only represented as being my edit when two intermediate edits were ignored. Your request for a 3rd party opinion was then changed by you, when you brought up Darren Mack.
Here it is again: This is the other edit that Slp1 has asked for a third party opinion: [51] not this one from above[52], which was included in the original request for a 3rd party opinion and which do not show two intermediate versions.
Slp1: "I promise I will take to heart some of the concerns you have expressed here when I do so." I hope so. Edits that include "new victims" or "such groups state that family law has swung too far in the other direction" are objectionable for the reasons stated above. Including an edit simply because it is verifiable and from a reliable source, is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Not only was no compelling reason provided for including the sentence, but no reason at all was provided for including the sentence, despite all of the valid concerns provided by Roger Gay and me.
"Law professors Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon state that members of the fathers' rights movement claim that men have become victims as a result of changes in family law." This is a more acceptable sentence, if it is verifiable. The original sentence was backdoor commentary by law professors about legal regulations, which was off-topic, vague, created innuendo and not attributed to the law professors at all but was falsely attributed to fathers' rights groups. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I have no idea what you are talking about, Michael. I have never said that you removed Sacks comments, because you didn't.[53]. Look carefully, the Sacks comments are present both before and after in the edits I asked for comment about.
Unfortunately, while I will bear in mind your views about the sentences, continuing to argue that we cannot include what you consider to be objectionable is not going to fly. I do not have to provide compelling reasons for including sourced information, though the reverse is true (we cannot remove of sourced information just by claiming bias). It is clear that so far you have failed to convince any non-involved editor of the merit of your arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion.[54][55][56] And please note that there are now multiple sources that discuss the FRM in context with the "victimhood" motif that you dislike, not just Collier and Sheldon. See [57], [58][59][60] --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Slp1:"I do not have to provide compelling reasons for including sourced information, though the reverse is true (we have to justify the removal of sourced information per NPOV)."

You have provided NO reason to include the awful sentence.

I have provided the reasons for my objections.

Including the sentence is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy because it elevates verifiability over all other Wikipedia policies including consensus. Roger Gay also objected to the edit.

I object to the proposed "new victims" and "FRGs say that legal regulations have swung too far" for the following reasons: It is confusing for readers. It is vague. It is off-topic backdoor commentary about legal regulations. It creates innuendo and it is biased. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Okay, here is a reason. I am helping to write an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia aims to bring free information to people via the internet. All articles written here aim to to be a summary of the existing knowledge about topics, and we aim to use the highest quality resources possible, including books published by university presses, academics etc to source our articles. The sentences that you consider "awful", "indefensible", "a pollution" or whatever the latest epithet, are in fact the views of multiple reputable scholars in the field. You and Roger Gay may dislike their ideas, and disagree with them as strongly as you like, but that doesn't matter. IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument for non-inclusion, and independent editors have agreed with me on this. I urge you strongly to accept the conclusion of the third opinion; but if you don't then please take it further in the dispute resolution process rather than continuing to make the same arguments here over and over again. On the other hand, you might actually want to wait till I make some edits before continuing your protests.--Slp1 (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again Slp1 presents no reason to include the edit other than verifiability. Slp1 focused on the epithets, but ignored the following: It is confusing for readers. It is vague. It is off-topic backdoor commentary about legal regulations. It creates innuendo and it is biased. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You can repeat these points ad nauseaum but nobody has ever agreed with you, [61][62][63] except Roger Gay, a fellow member of the FRM, who concured with your POV, just before he was blocked for disruptive editing and POV pushing[64], and who was later found to be using sockpuppets.[65]. Either give it up, or take it to dispute resolution. I am not engaging in this pointless discussion any further.--Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a summary: I objected to a sentence. I removed the sentence and provided my reasons. You stated that I couldn't remove the sentence. You tried to diminish the weight of my views, without focusing on the sentence at issue. In fact, you never provided any reason why the sentence should be included other than that it was verifiable. You requested a third party opinion. You changed the request. You stated incorrectly that I was the author of all of the edits for which you requested a third party opinion. You've declared some kind of consensus victory and declared that further discussion is pointless.
Consensus is not decided by voting. The issues of the sentence at issue remain and they have never been challenged. If the sentence appears again in the article, I will delete it, and I will do so based purely on Wikipedia policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
And here's my summary. You removed well-sourced sentences from notable academics in the field stating at various times that they were not from scholarly sources (untrue)[66], "unsourced" (untrue)[67], "synthesis" (untrue),[68] "biased",(not a reason for deletion), "a pollution" etc (not a reason for deletion), "confusing/vague" (not a reason for deletion, but a good reason to improve the sentences which I suggested multiple times). You reinserted original research and synthesis saying that it "improved the article"[69] and introduced unverifiable information into the article[70] With all due respect, I suggest that it might be worth considering that not all your edits are in fact "based purely on Wikipedia policy" as confirmed by the fact that none of the three editors visiting this page has agreed with your reasoning about them. If you disagree with my and their determination on this matter(which does represent the consensus at present, like it or not) then feel free to take it further in dispute resolution. But also please understand that if you don't do this, and if you do continue to delete well-sourced information or act in other ways to promote your personal viewpoint on this or any other page contrary to WP policies on neutral point of view, consensus etc, then I will need to pursue these avenues myself. --Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: "Remaining is the question of whether the material in these deletions [71] [72] should be restored." <<<< This is the request for 3rd party opinion made by Slp1 and copied from above.

This edit [73] (same as the bold edit above) does not show two intermediate versions. WLU removed the Glenn Sacks material: [74]. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm sorry, Michael, but you still seem to be confused about this. The edit that I asked about [75] is composed of this edit[76], this edit [77], and this edit [78], all your edits done between 14:08 and 14:13 on September 5th. The Sacks material was present before and after these edits. WLU deleted it an hour later.[79] I have never thought or suggested that you deleted it. I never asked for a third opinion on its deletion. It came up because it seems that RegentsPark was confused by its highlighting in the diff, and thought that it was part of the disputed material, not noticing that it was present in both the before and after edits. (A similar mistake to the one you made when you thought I had deleted the women in the movement material). I made it clear in responding to RegentsPark that WLU made the edit, and that it wasn't part of our dispute.[80] --Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about this, and I am wrong. I apologize. I also thought that the lunatic fringe statement by Glenn Sacks was part of your request for a third party opinion. I saw red in the right-hand column of the edit difference and didn't appreciate the significane of the little plus sign. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


This section needs to be changed or eliminated.

"Liberal fathers’ rights advocates support equality with regard to gender roles, arguing that both sexes can be nurturers and breadwinners, and thus joint custody is in the best interest of the child because both men and women can be caregivers. They argue that they remain true to the original vision of feminism in seeking to free both men and women from stereotypical roles and from legal discrimination.[14][11] In contrast, the conservative wing of the Fathers’ rights movement decry the breakdown of the “traditional” family, and the gender-based roles implicit within it, viewing feminism as an enemy. They maintain that joint custody is in the best interest of the child because men and women are not interchangeable, and thus access to both parents provides the best environment for children.[14][11][13]"

In my view, the section is overly simplistic, confusing, and given undue weight. It also includes no attribution. To start,

(1) Some, possibly most, of the people who believe that both men and women can be both nurturers and breadwinners may also believe that children need more than nurturing and breadwinning. They may believe that children need parental authority and that both genders are capable of asserting parental authority for the best interest of children. In addition, they may also believe that there are gender-correlated differences in parenting style. (2) Some, possibly most, of the people who believe that both men and women can be both nurturers and breadwinners may also view current feminists as enemies, because current feminists oppose a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. They may believe that the "original goals of feminism" have changed.

Michael H 34 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This sentence is also a concern:

"Such groups argue that fathers are victimized by gender bias and discrimination in family law,[9][11][4][14] and that sole custody decisions are a denial of equal rights.[14][15][13][16] "

In particular, such groups state that mothers who are primary breadwinners are discriminated against. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Michael

This is a much better sentence: Such groups state that fathers are victimized by gender bias and discrimination in family law,[9][11][4][14] and that sole custody decisions are a denial of parental rights.[14][15][13][16] Michael H 34 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Thank you, Michael, for your apology and also for discussing your concerns about my recent edits here on the talkpage. I appreciate both.
To summarize, your viewpoint is that the sections added are "simplistic, confusing, and given undue weight" and include "no attribution". Then you describe the specific problems you see need correction in the sentences, describing your views of what some and/or most people believe about these issues. You also would prefer to change "equal rights" to "parental rights" to cover the issue of women being discriminated against.
The difficulty is that however right you are about what some/most people believe in the fathers' rights movement, that is not what scholars in the field have reported in their research. We cannot include your ideas and corrections to their views unless there are reliable sources that state them. And undue weight actually says we should include the current points since "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." These are the scholarly opinions of academics in the field and are clearly notable, prominent and eminently encyclopedic. Note that we also cannot change 'equal' to 'parental' because the academics sourced do not say this or make the point you would like to make. Finally, specific attribution in the text is not required for all statements in the article, as you know, and indeed the citations supplied are attribution in themselves. See WP:ATT for a useful essay on these topics.--Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the author and the source, opinion is not necessarily scholarly or appropriate for the article. In particular, the use of the word wing is without basis. It implies through innuendo that there are about an equal number of so-called "liberal" and "conservative" members with these particular views. It is not encyclopedic.
The liberal and conservative terms and the viewpoints associated with them are clearly constructs of the authors. The authors state that these descriptions were for "analysis purposes." What exists in the article currently is taken out of context.
Opinions need attribution.
I suggest that the section be reworked or deleted. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Thank you for helpful edits. I have reworked some of them, since I think important points from the sources were deleted in some edits, and also for improved flow. I think including "in constrast" makes clear the link to the previous section, for example. The section added sourced from Baskerville was not really about the subject at hand (which is the divergent nature of the FRM,) and seemed to be more about presumption of joint custody and criticizing feminists. I was going to move it lower to that section before I noticed that there was pretty much an identical sentence already there.
I agree that opinions need attribution: the question is does the mainstream academic research to be attributed when there are apparently no reliable sources or other academic sources contradicting it? For example, take a look at the AIDS article: there is no attribution of the opinion that HIV causes AIDS, even though there are those who dispute it. But it is an interesting question, and I will be asking for some opinions elsewhere to help clarify the matter. Depending on the outcome, in the interests of NPOV, we may need to consider attributing way more opinions/arguments than already are: it is not clear, for Shadfly, for example, is adequate as the sole citation for a sentence that says "Supporters of the fathers' rights movement", and of course there are others, on the "critics" side.
On a lighter note, can you begin to think of more neutral words than just "state" that are acceptable to you? "State" is used way too much in this article. Personally I think "argue" is neutral when used in the context of what beliefs/positions are, along with "say, maintain, write". Can you make a list of words that work for you?--Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've posted my questions here.--Slp1 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? [81] For a bit of variety and so it reads better. It is a dreadfully monotonous read at present. If you don't like "argue", then please think of some other words that please you better, as I asked above. --Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintain and assert are more neutral than argue. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you. I will attempt to add some variety at some point soon. In the meantime, once again please stop deleting well-sourced content from the article. [82][83]. The content you have deleted is sourced to multiple highly reliable academic sources. If it is "confusing" (as your edit summary suggests), then by all means clarify the sentences without deleting the concepts/information contained in them. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "constructs for analysis purposes" (from the edit summary once again) but helping readers explore the central constructs of the FRM seems to me precisely what an encyclopedia should be attempting to do. And if the text "creates innuendo about the "traditional family" through contrast with "gender equality"" as you allege, then you need to take that up with the scholars whose views these are: it is not the place of this encyclopedia to do anything more than faithfully summarize the opinions of experts in the field. --Slp1 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding wordy, confusing and biased innuendo just because you can label it the opinion of "experts." Furthermore, the article is about the fathers' rights movement and this section is about the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. The article is not about "constructs for analysis purposes" of members of the fathers' rights movement made by some scholars and the article is not about opinions about feminism. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: Even what remains after my edit is the result of synthesis. Slp1 has connected constructs for analysis purposes to actual members of the fathers' rights movement.

Some scholars state that some fathers’ rights advocates maintain that joint physical custody is in the best interest of children based on the idea that both men and women can be breadwinners and caregivers, while others support joint physical custody based on the idea that men and women parent differently, that they are not interchangeable, and they assert that for this reason children need access to both parents.[1][2][3] Michael H 34 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
No, Michael. WP:SYNT is when people combine two or more ideas from separate sources to make a new point. The references given make exactly the points the article did by comparing the two strands of the fathers' rights movement and their attitudes to feminism and gender roles etc. Yes, the article is about the fathers' rights movement and yes, the analysis of multiple scholars about its composition and attitudes published in highly reliable sources can and should be included. It appears that you disagree with the views of the academics, calling them "innuendo". WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is not a reason for removing sourced material, no matter how strong your opinion.
But perhaps you are right and the sections should be organized differently, with the information included elsewhere. I will take a look at this in a day or two and will be editing accordingly. Note, however, that I am still very concerned that your goals continue to be "to make the issues of the FRM as clear and well-written as possible" as you stated last year [84] rather than "to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by NPOV. Note that the same policy states that this NPOV editing is "non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors". --Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Slp1. Synthesis also occurs when a source discusses one thing and then an editor uses the material to connect the dots to something else. You have connected the dots from artificial constructs used "for analysis purposes" of actual people to the actual people themselves.

I believe that these scholarly sources do not seriously consider that a group of real people fit neatly into two categories. Not only is it simplistic, but this is about an irrelevant viewpoint. This article is not about feminism or gender roles.

The sentences you added create a great deal of confusion for the reader, not just about members of the fathers' rights movement, but also about feminism and about the traditional family.

Feminism is irrelevant to the fathers' rights movement except to the extent that feminist organizations advocate for increased government power over individuals and families and oppose a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. Clearly, these feminists are the opponents of all members of the fathers' rights movement. It is confusing to the reader to state that only a subset of the members of the fathers' rights movement view feminism as an enemy. To which feminism does the statement refer?

The use of the word "contrast", one subset with the other that supports the "original goals of feminism", creates innuendo about both members of the fathers' rights movement and feminism.

Members of the fathers' rights movement support gender equality (a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting) while feminist organizations oppose it. The sentences you added use innuendo to imply that a subset of the fathers' rights movement do not support gender equality (in contrast to others who support gender equality and the original goals of feminism) and that feminists do still support gender equality (since they are the enemy of the subset who are "contrasted" with the subset who support gender equality). The innuendo is not perfect because the words "original goals of feminism" show that feminism has changed, and so a careful reader becomes confused.

I recall that at one time this article included words to the effect that "members of the fathers' rights movement state that their policies benefit excluded mothers" (source: Families Need Fathers) and "no significant percentage of the movement supports a return to patriarchy" (source: Teri Stoddard). I'm not sure but I believe that it was you who deleted these "well-sourced" statements. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following edit appears to have included unsourced commentary contrasting sourced statements.

[85]

The phrase "several interrelated trends" adds very little detail to the article, and may have been included only to add the unsourced commentary: "a more sophisticated analysis" in comparison to "gender war."

Please note that the title of the book used as a source for viewpoints of members of the fathers' rights movement is a book written by Stephen Baskerville titled "Taken Into Custody: The War on Fathers, Marriage and the Family."

The original edit can mislead the reader because the war to which Stephen Baskerville refers is not a gender war, but one between individual rights and the power of government.

Taken alone, the edit above is only one edit. Yet, there is something similar with regard to the current edit about scholars analysis of (- the part that is left out) viewpoints of members of the fathers' rights movement with respect to gender equality, gender roles, gender specialization, the original goals of feminism, and feminism as an enemy. Why are these sentences included? Doesn't the article already state that members of the fathers' rights movment have diverse viewpoints?

This (scholars analysis of) edit is also comprised of "well-sourced" sentences added sequentially to create or synthesize something extra using "contrast." In this case, that something extra is innuendo about support for gender equality among some members of the fathers' rights movement and among feminists. As noted above, confusion is also created for the careful reader. Just like the "more sophisticated analysis" edit, the "innuendo (and confusion) about gender equality" edit adds little detail and is not relevant to the article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, please understand that you need to be on very sure ground before making accusations of this sort. You have now accused me of synthesis and adding unsourced material and commentary, neither of which is accurate. I have already pointed out above that the Williams and Williams chapter [86] makes exactly the point included in the text (ie that there are pro-feminist and anti-feminist groupings within the FRM). You have now produced an edit of mine [87] and are claiming that this is unsourced commentary. In order to make this claim, you would need to check the sources I gave, including the Collier and Sheldon book. Have you done this? I am guessing not, because if you had you would see that I faithfully summarized their views on this matter. And here's the proof.
  • Here's what I wrote "Some commentators see the rise of the movement as a 'backlash' to increasing female power in the family and in society, and the consequent challenge to men's traditional roles and authority. In this view, the movement is seen as part of a 'gender war' between the sexes. Other commentators propose a more complex analysis that several interrelated trends have led to the growing prominence of the movement."
  • Here's what Collier and wrote in the book: "We hope that, from what has necessarily been a brief sketch, that describing the rise of the FRM in terms of a 'backlash' to increased female power is, at best, a caricature of which fails to capture the multifaceted, fast changing, complex realities of men's and women's experiences of family background and shifting gender roles." (p.14); and "While there are limits to the ideas of backlash and 'gender wars' in seeking to understand the rise of the FRM, we would suggest that it is possible to point to three interrelated trends that underpin the new prominence of the FRM internationally...." (p. 10);
  • Here's what they wrote in their Guardian article: "Why has the fathers' rights movement gained such momentum now? One explanation that has proved attractive to some parts of the media is the idea of "backlash", most famously discussed by the US author Susan Faludi, who describes a powerful counter-assault against the achievements of feminism. As women gain more influence outside the household, she suggests, men lose their traditional role and authority both at home and in the workplace. Inevitably, men fight back and "gender wars" result. This is one of the claims examined in a new collection of essays by leading commentators on family law and policy in five countries. It argues that the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life, which cannot be reduced to a balance sheet in which men proportionately lose what women gain in power and rights. A more accurate explanation of the current high profile of fathers' rights might rather be found in a more complex mixture of factors."[88]
Your opinion about what should and should not be included in the article is noted. However, we are not here to write a summary of Baskerville's view of the FRM. We are here to summarize the highest quality information about the movement that exists. This includes academic texts and articles by experts of the subject, which includes, but is not restricted to, Baskerville. This includes highly reliable sources that may not reflect Baskerville's (or your) views. But it also includes any other sources that you can find that might contradict the one's that I found. Can you find any reliable sources that contradict the notions/ideas you have been arguing against? (e.g. pro and anti feminist sections of the FRM) If you can find some they can be included too as a counterbalance to the opinions of the academics. --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proof is accepted and I will continue to assume good faith in your edits. I continue to strongly object to your most recent edit to this article. I offer my apologies for connecting the prior edit to the most recent edit.

"It argues that the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life, which cannot be reduced to a balance sheet in which men proportionately lose what women gain in power and rights."

No one is arguing against this. The enemies of members of the fathers' rights movement are the government its policies, and those who support these policies. John Waters wrote something to the effect that "they'll go after the women next." I suggest that any references to "gender war" be clearly connected to Susan Faludi's idea of a backlash.

"Can you find any reliable sources that contradict the notions/ideas you have been arguing against? (e.g. pro and anti-feminist sections of the FRM)?"

(1) Which feminism do you mean? Your most recent edit to this article placed the traditional family and the idea of differing abilities among men and women as something contrary to gender equality!!! Opposition to a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is the "enemy" of something that is contrasted with gender equality!!! Do current feminists or members of the fathers' rights movement, who support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting, support gender equality?

(2) Artificial constructs used "for analysis purposes" of actual people have been connected to the actual people themselves, and this is the result of synthesis.

(3) "No significant percentage of the movement supports a return to patriarchy" (source: Teri Stoddard) was once included in the article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, your posting here, in my view, takes us once again to the crux of the problem. Your opinion and my opinion of these matters are not the point. You seem to assume that I agree with the content of my edits, but that's not the case at all. I add whatever interesting, well-sourced material I can find to help this article be the best possible summary of the FRM. It doesn't matter whether I personally agree with the content or not. And so it really doesn't matter who you believe are the "enemies of the fathers' rights movement". It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what Collier, Sheldon, Baskerville et al say. It doesn't matter if we think their arguments are foolish or brilliant. It doesn't matter if their work is "Artificial constructs used "for analysis purposes" of actual people have been connected to the actual people themselves" (though I still haven't figured out quite what this means).
Our job here is to summarize the views of experts in the field, not to judge the validity of their arguments. You can't delete the views of notable scholars just because they don't seem logical or reasonable to you. What does matter is what other notable experts say. I suggested that you find some reliable sources that contradict Collier and Sheldon's notions and support your views. If you can find the Teri Stoddard quote and if it is determined that she constitutes a reliable source for this article, then that will do fine. Or find somebody else. But you need to produce some reliable sources instead of modifying/deleting the sourced information we do have, just because you don't like the information it contains. --Slp1 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes

http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/SPBrochureImage4.pdf?docID=1401 Michael H 34 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Gender war/backlash vs. increase in separation and fragility of fathers' bonds

The suggested edit below did not change the meaning at all, but only improved the flow and the attribution.

[[89]]

Some commentators, such as law professors Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon, see the rise of the movement not as a result of a gender war associated with a 'backlash' to increasing female power in the family and in society, and the consequent challenge to men's traditional roles and authority, but rather they see the increase in the prominence of the movement as a result of the greater fragmentation of families through the decline in marriage and the rise in divorce/separation rates, which they assert have increased the fragility of fathers' bonds with their children.[4][5]

Michael H 34 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually your edit [90] does change the meaning considerably.
  • Can you explain why you have entirely deleted the view that some hold that the movement's rise is the result of the "gender wars"? per "One explanation that has proved attractive to some parts of the media is the idea of "backlash". (from [91], and of course the book). Deletions and changes of this sort to remove/devalue one sourced view entirely is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
  • Can you please give me the specific page number of the Collier and Sheldon book where they say the rise of the movement not the result of a gender war? My reading pf their work is that they say that there "are limits to the ideas of backlash and 'gender wars'", and that "the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life", which is not the same at all as rejecting entirely. So please produce the citation to justify your edit. And note that the bolding of the text not to emphasize your point is contrary to the WP:BOLD and I would argue WP:NPOV too.
  • Can you justify, using WP policy based reasoning, why you have deleted Collier and Sheldon's view that "that shifting household demographics" are one of the causes of rise of the movement? Once again, deletions of sourced material of this sort is contrary to WP policy, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to the other reasons that you have left intact.
I am going to restore the sourced material, per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE. I will leave some of your other, more stylistic edits untouched. Please do not delete it without clear justifications based on WP policies.--Slp1 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have also reverted this edit.[92] Introducing a scholarly opinion with the phrase: "Analysis of members of the fathers' rights movement by scholars assume that members of the fathers’ rights movement rationalize their support for joint physical custody for different reasons...." is not of neutral point of view. Your view that the scholars are wrong is very clear in this edit. Michael H, these POV edits cannot continue. Please stop and consider what you are doing. --Slp1 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that a Wikipedia administrator would accuse someone of POV editing when the edits really speak for themselves.

I have added quite a bit of the criticism of the FRM to this article.

(1) An assumption must be labeled an assumption or you are being dishonest to the reader. Your edit is the clear result of synthesis. You connected assumptions about people to real people without disclosing this to the reader.

(2) My edit to the gender war / backlash sentences did not change any of the meaning, and only improved the flow and the attribution.

(3) You are making an incorrect assumption about my views with regards to the scholars' assumptions. I agree with the assumptions of the scholars as described in the current version of the article. What is disappointing to me is that the synthesis of your edit was pointed out to you in advance on this page, but you undid my edit anyway.

(4) "Analysis of members of the fathers' rights movement by scholars assume that members of the fathers’ rights movement rationalize their support for joint physical custody for different reasons...." is clearly NPOV. Without doubt this is NPOV.

Michael H 34 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Synthesis is not "You connected assumptions about people to real people without disclosing this" (whatever that means). Synthesis is when you connect two separate texts to prove a point. The text (and the one you deleted above) all come from the SAME source. If you believe I am wrong about what synthesis is and isn't on Wikipedia, then go to the WP:NORN see if you can get anybody to agree with you there. While you are there you might notice that to date there is no support for your claim that this edit[93] is synthesis.[94]
I'll bet you agree with the current version of this [95] since you had already deleted the multiply sourced parts you call "innuendo" here.[96].
Your edit to the gender war/backlash sentences has demoted one view (that the rise of the FRM is the result of the anti-feminist backlash) into something that is is only contradicted and not given equal standing as a view. I repeat that this is contrary to WP:NPOV. --Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Your edit to the gender war/backlash sentences has demoted one view (that the rise of the FRM is the result of the anti-feminist backlash) into something that is is only contradicted and not given equal standing as a view."

Based on which reliable source do you justify equal standing for the gender war / backlash view? Collier and Sheldon is the source for the sentence as it currently stands.
"This is one of the claims examined in a new collection of essays by leading commentators on family law and policy in five countries. It argues that the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life...."

"I'll bet you agree with the current version of this [97] since you had already deleted the multiply sourced parts you call "innuendo" here.[98]."

I deleted the objectionable parts for reasons described on this page. I called it innuendo for good reasons.

"Synthesis is not "You connected assumptions about people to real people without disclosing this" (whatever that means)."

I will assume good faith in your edit. (Perhaps you believe that disclosing that assumptions were made somehow devalues the scholars' opinion. I point out here that assumptions are not something that are necessarily bad.) I described a specific example of synthesis.
The scholars assumed that members of the fathers' rights movement fit into two categories "for analysis purposes." It is completely improper not to disclose that assumptions were made by the scholars. Real people do not fit neatly into two categories.
By not disclosing the assumptions made by the scholars you have "connected the dots" between the two-category assumption and real people. This is an example of synthesis.
Disclosing that the scholars made assumptions does not devalue their view in any way at all. Not in the least. In some professions, people must make assumptions, and it is required by their professional standards of practice to disclose the assumptions.

Michael H 34 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael,
  • In this edit,[99] I have already showed you that Collier and Sheldon note that one prominent view about the rise of the movement is that it is the result of the "gender wars". Per NPOV this needs to be given a balanced treatment.
  • In the same edit I also asked you for the specific citation and page number to justify your edit that C and S reject that hypothesis in its entirety, per your edit. You have not done so. The sentence as currently phrased is unverifiable.
  • "I called it innuendo for good reasons". I'm sure you did. But since when does WP allow the deletion of the well-sourced (from multiple authors), neutrally phrased, attributed scholarly opinion based on one editor's view that it is "innuendo"? Answer: it doesn't [100], and "the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". Find some reliable sources that contrast with the ones you disagree, and they can certainly be included. At the moment, I can't one, but you may be more successful.
  • Thank you for explaining what you mean by "synthesis". You are using the term differently from the usual meaning here [[WP:SYNT] which explains my confusion. The actual citation from the Williams chapter is "As a matter of analytic convenience, the movement can be viewed as having both "liberal" and "conservative" wings.(p 94). Gavanas does not include this caveat [101], nor does this [102], nor does this source [103] (p. 72) which also talks about two wings, principally (but not exclusively) in the context of the men's rights movement. But despite this, I am happy that we include something to make this 'analytic convenience clear'. However to me the current version is not very clear, so I will make some edits to clarify, as well as restoring well-sourced information about the two wings of the movement.--Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your POV is clear from your edits and from the soources that you have selected. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

But since when does WP allow the deletion of the well-sourced (from multiple authors), neutrally phrased, attributed scholarly opinion based on one editor's view that it is "innuendo"? Answer: it doesn't
I'm encouraged to improve the article. In my view, something that is "well-sourced (from multiple authors), neutrally phrased, attributed scholarly opinion" is not necessarily an improvement or even appropriate for the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


Sheldon and Collier are the source for these views and they state that this view is incorrect. I changed the article to reflect this. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
"This is one of the claims examined in a new collection of essays by leading commentators on family law and policy in five countries. It argues that the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life...."
...and this is the only source for this view. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I hope you will excuse me that have moved your comments here. Threading the conversation is not a good idea as it makes in difficult to follow. Where do C and S say that "this view is incorrect"? Saying that something "fails to capture the complex realities" is not the same thing at all. Please provide with the specific citation and page number for this, please. C and S also say that the backlash motif is a common reason given for the rise of the movement, and so this view needs to be given equal airplay with their view. And if it helps to clarify the backlash/gender war information is a widely held notable view, then how about these [104][105][106][107] --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'll make an edit to address your concern.

Here's the source I was looking for: [108]

"can be viewed" as having two wings are the words from this honest source. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The controversy sentence

Re this edit.[120] Can you please tell me the page numbers used to cite this sentence? Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages 46 - 48. Your welcome. Fathers' rights organizations were discussed on pages 46 and 47, and a statement about fathers' rights (attributed to R. Collier) was included in the same paragraph as the paraphrased sentence. Michael H 34 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Okay, I remember the problem with this edit.[109] First, it is not about the rise of the FRM but about increased interest in custody in men (Collier is actually quoted as saying that this is not about fathers' rights, but about issues of father absence); both are no doubt related to the increased prominence of FRM, but not specifically stated as such. And since the author did not make the connection, neither can we. Second, it is taken out of context: the actual passage reads: " There is research to support the notion that fathers are more involved with their children than in times past, but the shift in image may be greater than the actual changes in fathers' involvement in parenting. Nonetheless, widespread expectations that fathers want to be more actively involved in childrearing and that children need fathers may be increasing the controversy and interest in the custody of children." Third, it is not some commentators, but one. Fourth, it is a word for word copy of the original text, which is a copyright violation Fifth, it is really just making the same point as Collier and Sheldon that men are expected to be more involved by society and this has caused tension. --Slp1 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you.

(1) This section of the article is about the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. It is not necessarily restricted to the rise of the movement

(2) Collier is discussing fathers' rights and the authors were discussing fathers' rights organizations.

(3) Again, this section of the article is not restricted to the rise of the movement.

(4) My edit is not a word for word copy of the source.

(5) The authors (plural) wrote what they wrote.

I am restoring my edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Michael, another time you create a new section, it is better to copy such add new section header or to copy the source text, in the edit window, as otherwise all the links in the text go dead.
I don't have time to fully answer at the moment, but as a start can you please justify your claims in 1 and 2 above with reference to the original text? Where is there a mention of the FRM? As far as I can see the FRM isn't talked about once in the whole book. The paragraph (and the chapter) is about custody determination, and the only mention about fathers' rights is to say "As custody determination moved into the era of the best interests of the child, Collier (1995) suggested we moved [my emphasis] from a concern with fathers' rights to a focus on the problems created by father absence" with the sentence you used coming several sentences later as part of the description of the 'father absence' focus of custody determination.[110] I look forward to your response.--Slp1 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, I provided you page numbers in which "fathers' rights organizations" are discussed.

Please note that the paragraph that begins with "scholars assert" has nothing to do with the rise of the fathers' rights movement. Although you are the editor who is adding this paragraph, you are also the editor who is deleting the "controversy" sentence because you claim that it is synthesis to connect this sentence to the rise of the fathers' rights movement (an artificial restriction in the background and history section) and despite the fact that fathers' rights organizations are discussed more than once by the source cited. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

You are indeed correct that FR organizations and groups are mentioned on p. 46 and 47 of the Ganong book.[111] I should have searched other formulations rather than just FRM. However, you have used something from p. 48 where the topic being discussed is custody determination and the arguments being used about it. In contrast, all the references I used for the "Some scholars assert..." section are specifically about and discussing the FRM. For example [112][113][114][115]. That's the difference. You are taking material on a related subject, and linked it to the FRM. It probably does link up to it, but since the author did not make the connection, neither can we. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view, you are incorrect. Even if fathers' rights was not mentioned in the very same paragraph as the paraphrased sentence, the authors WERE discussing fathers' rights organizations in the preceding paragraphs. Your claim: "You are taking material on a related subject, and linked it to the FRM." ignores this. The extra reference to fathers' rights in the same paragraph as the paraphrased sentence only strengthens the fact that the authors were discussing fathers' rights and fathers' rights organizations. The fact that fathers' rights in relation to child custody was included does NOT negate the fact that the authors were discussing fathers' rights organizations AND fathers' rights in relation to child custody.

You previously stated that you had "no doubt" that the reference to fathers' rights in relation to child custody was linked to the fathers' rights movement. You added that as editors we could not synthesize a link to the fathers' rights movement.

However, upon more careful checking we have found that the authors DID discuss fathers' rights organizations. I do not understand how you can possibly object to this edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Let's take a careful look this chapter.[116] Its subtitle is "Parents' responsibility to assume physical custody of children.
  • p. 45-46 Begins a discussion legal changes in child custody laws and the motivations behind this. One of the factors discussed is external pressure from the FRM and mothers' groups.
  • p. 46-47 Discusses the history of societal attitudes towards child custody, including the 18th-19th Century view of "natural right" of fathers to the custody of their children", and the FRM is mentioned briefly because they sometimes still use this "natural right" argument. This section goes on to talk about the natural right view how fell out of favour in the 19th Century and moved into the "tender years" doctrine which tended to favour mothers' custody. This continued to be the dominant societal view until the 1960s when the "best interests of the child" child custody determination came into fashion.
  • p. 47-8 goes on to talk about how legal changes such as the no-fault divorce affected child custody determinations.
  • On p.48, Collier is paraphrased, introducing a section about "father absence". "Collier (1995) suggested that we moved from a concern with father's rights to a focus on the problems created by father absence." The section goes onto describe the father absence argument, as well as the changes in attitudes towards fatherhood, which in which fathers are seen as nurturing and wanting to be involved in parenting, though it is not clear that fathers are actually as involved as society views them. The paragraph finishes with the sentence that you have copied verbatim. "Nonetheless, widespread expectations that fathers want to be more actively involved in childrearing and that children need fathers may be increasing the controversy and interest in the custody of children."
This chapter is not about the FRM. It is about child custody and what factors have influenced societal attitudes over the last 200 years. In addition, though the paragraph in question does use the words "fathers' rights" it is in fact to say that "we [have] moved" away from a fathers' rights concern to the father absence one.
From WP:NOR "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." The source cited is not directly related to the subject of the article, and thus cannot be used. This whole chapter would likely be a very useful source for the history of child custody article, however.--Slp1 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. While there is no doubt in my mind that the primary subject of the chapter is decisions about child custody, there is also no doubt that fathers' rights organizations (and fathers' rights) are a subject of the chapter. Not only are fathers' rights organizations discussed directly by the authors, but fathers' rights organizations are directly related to the primary subject of the chapter, as you kindly noted the first time you reverted the edit. [117] Michael H 34 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The subject of the article is the FRM. The subject of the chapter is child custody, as you admit. Two brief mentions of the FRM on previous pages do not make it the topic of the chapter or more importantly the paragraph in question. The two subjects are related in your mind and my mind but the author did not "directly" relate them as required by policy. I am deleting the sentence. If you continue to disagree, ask for review at the WP:NORN --Slp1 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The subject of the article is the fathers' rights movement, which is undeniably also a subject of the cited source. Fathers' rights or fathers' rights organizations are discussed in the paragraph preceding the cited sentence and in the paragraph including the cited sentence.
Furthermore, to exclude a source simply because its primary topic is decisions about child custody from this article about fathers' rights would be appropriate if the authors of the source had not also discussed fathers' rights organizations, but the authors did discuss fathers' rights organizations. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Take it to WP:NORN and see if you can get somebody to agree with you. --Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Example

The following sentence in the article is appropriate and I have no objection to it:

"Critics of the Cost Share Model guidelines including Laura W. Morgan state that it focuses on the relative living standards of divorcing parents rather than the best interests of the children and financially supporting them at the same level after divorce."

You will find that the cited source does not mention fathers' rights movement, fathers' rights organizations, fathers' rights or even fathers. The primary topic of the cited source is the cost shares model. Why is the cited sentence appropriate for the article?

The topic of this part of the article is child support. Indeed a connection to the article is made because we represent R Mark Rogers as a member of the fathers' rights movement and Laura Morgan mentions R. Mark Rogers in her article.

Clearly, the primary subject of the source for the controversy edit is child custody, but child custody is directly related to the fathers' rights movement and although we both know this to be true, we didn't have to make that connection, because the authors of the cited source discuss fathers' rights organizations in their chapter.

I'm restoring the edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The difference is that the Laura Morgan view occurs in the "Issues" (of the FRM) section of the article, of which Child Support is one. She is also specifically attributed as a critic of the Cost Share Model guidelines, nothing to do with the FRM. However, I would agree that its inclusion is questionable. The sentence you are disputing is in a section about the Background and History of the FRM, and yet the FRM is not even mentioned in the paragraph you have taken copied it from. Once again, brief mentions of the FRM on previous pages are not enough to make this chapter "directly related" to the FRM.--Slp1 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"The sentence you are disputing is in a section about the Background and History of the FRM, and yet the FRM is not even mentioned in the paragraph you have taken copied it from."
Can you point to the Wikipedia policy whereby the mention of the article must be included in the paragraph of a cited sentence? If you can, I will delete the sentence myself. This is a rather strict standard from the editor who added the Laura Morgan edit, the source for which does not mention the fathers' rights movement, fathers' rights organizations, fathers' rights or even fathers. Also, the sentence is paraphrased, it is not copied.
"Once again, brief mentions of the FRM on previous pages are not enough to make this chapter "directly related" to the FRM."
You previously had "no doubt" that the subject of the chapter is directly related to the fathers' rights movement. I agreed with you then, but I disagree with you now.

Clearly, the primary subject of the source for the controversy edit is child custody, and child custody IS directly related to the fathers' rights movement. We haven't synthesized this connection between the fathers' rights movement and child custody in the slightest, because the authors of the cited source discuss fathers' rights organizations in their chapter.

I am not questioning the Laura Morgan edit. In my view, its inclusion is clearly appropriate. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The oppose feminism phrase

"Can you find any reliable sources that contradict the notions/ideas you have been arguing against? (e.g. pro and anti-feminist sections of the FRM)?"

(1) Which feminism do you mean? Your most recent edit to this article placed the traditional family and the idea of differing abilities among men and women as something contrary to gender equality!!! Opposition to a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is the "enemy" of something that is contrasted with gender equality!!! Do current feminists or members of the fathers' rights movement, who support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting, support gender equality?

(2) "No significant percentage of the movement supports a return to patriarchy" (source: Teri Stoddard) was once included in the article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


Notes: Members of the fathers' rights movement distinguish between different forms of feminism: [118]

"Please, remember that there are corrupt judges out there, and that gender feminists are scary…also remember that there are good and fair judges out there, and that equity feminists generally work for, ya know, equality."

(talk) 13:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, I must warn you that continuing to delete well-sourced information could get you into serious trouble. I have already pointed out I have cited four highly reliable sources for the "oppose feminism" (not enemy) edit.[119][120][121][122] There also many others that could be used.[123][124][125]. The sources cited do not define the kind of feminism involved and therefore neither can we, per WP:OR. As I have said before, if you disagree, the correct response is to find reliable sources to support your point so that we can balance the statement with another view. If you think Teri Stoddard is a reliable source, find it and we can discuss it.--Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make threats. I remind you that you have also deleted information from a reliable source.

Your "oppose feminism" is still very confusing for readers. It creates innuendo about about an artificial wing of the fathers' rights movement and about feminism. Michael H 34 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

If you want to add something about how an artificial wing of the fathers' rights movement opposes feminism, then I suggest that another sentence be added such as:

"Members of the fathers' rights movement contrast gender feminists, who they describe as scary and who they compare to corrupt judges, with equity feminists, who they say support equality and who they compare to good and fair judges." [126] Michael H 34 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Alright, both of you.. cut it out. Slow edit-warring is still edit-warring. Continued edit-warring will lead to one or both of you being blocked, the page being protected, or all of the above. If you have a difference of opinion, either ask for a Third Opintion, or bring it up in various forms of Dispute Resolution such as a Request for Comment. SirFozzie (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that although quite a few reversions have occurred in recent days, compromises have also been reached and progress has been made.

I do feel quite strongly that (1) the Ganong - "controversy" sentence is a good sentence that is appropriate for the article and it is not in violation with any Wikipedia policy, and (2) that the phrase "oppose feminism" (a) should be deleted because it is confusing for the reader or (b) can be included along with an additional clarifying sentence. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sigh. I have been trying to get outside opinions in a variety of places, but have posted a third opinion also as you suggest.
Michael, as I have said above, I don't oppose an additional clarifying statement or alternative viewpoint if you can find a reliable source. Unfortunately two editors at the reliable sources noticeboard have already indicated that the blog source you provided above [127] is not appropriate for sourcing here on WP.[128] --Slp1 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The opinions on the Reliable sources board were based on incorrect information. Glenn Sacks is the author of the statement not Garret Luttrell.

"Glenn Sacks, a leader in the fathers' rights movement, contrasts gender feminists, who he describes as scary and who he compares to corrupt judges, with equity feminists, who he says support equality and who he compares to good and fair judges." [129] Michael H 34 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Really? The article quite clearly says "by Garrett Luttrell".--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I take back my assertion. I think that you're right. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, I think I'm right too ;-). Might it be a good idea to strike out your assertion in the other places (below and on the WP:RSN where you've made it? It might be less confusing for other editors if you do.

--Slp1 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion re oppose feminism

Is this deletion [130] of the words "oppose feminism and" appropriate? The deleted words can be sourced to the following reliable sources:

Thank you --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that including "oppose feminism" and ascribing it to one artificial wing of the FRM, is not in agreement with all of the range of opinions listed above. I would also like to point out that at least one of the sources above is from a critic of the fathers' rights movement. The critic, Michael Flood, failed to distinguish between radical feminism (this is the term used by one of the authors above) and equity feminism. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is the need for the distinction between "radical feminism" (this is the author's term from above) and "feminism" that requires that the following sentence be included if the phrase "oppose feminism" is also included:

"Glenn Sacks, a leader in the fathers' rights movement, contrasts gender feminists, who he describes as scary and who he compares to corrupt judges, with equity feminists, who he says support equality and who he compares to good and fair judges." [131] Michael H 34 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 I took back this assertion. Garrett Lutrell is the author of the sentence. I apologize that I did not strike it sooner. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

If this distinction is not made, then innuendo has been created about feminism.

Members of the fathers' rights movement support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting (a position consistent with gender equality), which is supported by equity feminists but opposed by the National Organization of Women (US). If the views above are not clearly and carefully expressed then readers can be mislead and confused. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I hesitate to post here, because too much back and forth scares off other editors who might help by giving an opinion. But I should point out that the words "oppose feminism and" are attributed using the words "According to these scholars...". From the citations given, it is undeniable that multiple of "these scholars" do hold the view that those of the conservative wing of the movement oppose feminism. Omitting their view about this anti-feminism would be totally contrary to our requirement for neutral point of view. Other, contrasting views from reliable sources are welcome if they can be found.--Slp1 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
We can hope that others will be bold enough to add their comments. I hope that you can see the multiple problems I have with including the phrase "oppose feminism." It stems from the fact that the term feminism is broad (no pun intended).
(1) The entire fathers' rights movement supports the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting, which is opposed by feminist organizations such as NOW. A conflict is created and confusion results, if the article reports that only one "wing" of the fathers' rights movement views feminists as opponents. Considering that these are clearly only assumptions made by scholars, there is an issue of undue weight here.
(2) Earlier versions of this paragraph created very clear innuendo about "feminism." I am still very concerned about this. Two separate and distinct wings of the fathers' rights movement are assumed by scholars - one that supports gender equality and the other that opposes feminism. Innuendo is created about the word feminism, but there are many forms of feminism and clearer terms are required. Christina Hoff Sommers coined the terms gender feminism and equity feminism. Even one of your sources above used the term "radical feminism." Mr. Flood, the critic of the fathers' rights movement, did not choose to make the distinction, but making the choice that Mr. Flood made is not neutral in this case. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Several (up to 5-6 now) academic sources have talked about the wings and their views: they might be right or wrong, but this viewpoint is clearly notable and encyclopedic. It is the opinion of multiple scholars that the conservative wing of the movement opposes feminism, and it is appropriate that this attributed view be included whatever our personal opinion about the accuracy of their views. If you have evidence that the entire FRM opposes feminism (which your comment seems to imply) that's great and let's include it. I suspect it won't be difficult to find sources. I'll give it a go tomorrow. However, remember that this is an international article, so we can't put much emphasis on very US-centric topics, such as NOW. If you have evidence that the FRM differentiates between gender and equity feminism, let's have that information too and we can include it. --Slp1 (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:NPOV

I've noticed some changes in this article over the last few days, as displayed here, that indicate that there has been a noticeable shift from a relatively neutral point of view in this article, to one that subtly shifts the balance. For example, the discussion of the Collier/Sheldon material is clumsy and oppositional. There is now a link to Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, a book that does not appear in the list of references, purportedly discussing its point of view; as best I can tell, this is a WP:SYNTH extrapolation from the Guardian article. There is a significant difference between "denial of equal rights" and "violated their rights". Flood's paper does state that the practices of many (but not all) fathers' rights groups are harmful to the fathers; it goes far beyond saying they are "not helpful".

This is just a quick read of the recent changes in this article, and I see some other areas that require work to come back in line with the references. There's a problem when there are single sentences that have 5-7 separate references; either they are generalizing too much, or there is an element of synthesis.

Let's get this article back on track, folks. My specialty is in ensuring that WP:V and WP:NPOV are followed scrupulously, regardless of subject, and I don't play favourites between any particular perspective. I propose, to start, that all of the changes in the diff I've provided above be thoroughly and completely discussed; I see that some of that discussion is already taking place above. I've also asked a couple of other administrators and experienced editors to peek in at this article and provide some suggestions. Risker (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have made changes consistent with them. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, thank you Risker. Other voices and opinions are very welcome and helpful. And thank you Michael, for this [132] and this [133] edits, which in my view now accurately reflect the sources given. As suggested by Risker I will remove some of the citations, leaving the clearest source texts in place.
I suggest that we work now work one section at a time. I too am concerned by the Collier/Sheldon section, and do not feel that merely removing the Faludi link solves the problem. Perhaps not surprisingly since the text was mainly written by me, I feel that the "before" text here [134] is of more NPOV, giving both views in sourced, balance and neutral way. The current version not so subtly dismisses one opinion by stating that Collier and Sheldon "do not agree" with it. And in fact, this " do not agree" is also not an appropriate reflection of the source, since C and S say that there "are limits to the ideas of backlash and 'gender wars'", and that "the image of backlash fails to capture the complex realities of contemporary family life", which is not the same as not agreeing with the view at all. Thoughts? --Slp1 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a suggested edit to address this concern. In my view, balance between the two views is not sourced and therefore balance between the two views contradicts undue weight. I agree though that "do not agree" was too strong a phrase, and so I made a change. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is not clear to me how you could know whether the balance between the two views is "not sourced" since, as far as I am aware, you don't have access to the Collier and Sheldon book, which was one of the citations given. Suffice to say, they do describe the view in considerable detail on p 7-8, while summarizing their own on p. 9. In addition, I have provided another citation from a commentator who clearly subscribes to this viewpoint:"These [FR] groups are among the most vocal and publicised spearheads in the backlash against feminism." I made an edit to address my concerns of balance and have added citations so that the edit can be verified by anybody who cares to do so. --Slp1 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Michael H has made this edit, [135] changing the neutral "some commentators" to "critics of the fathers' rights movements" in introducing the "backlash/gender wars" set of views. His reasonings for this edit are described [136] and here [137]. This edit appears to me to be not only unverifiable, but an attempt to introduce POV by marginalizing one viewpoint, one of a series of edits to this section where there has been an attempt to do this.[138][139][140].
Reliable sources say that this "backlash" and "gender/sex wars" view, is not proposed solely by 'critics of the fathers' rights movement', but in fact is "popular in some parts of the media"[141], is subscribed to by "A number of authors" (Collier and Sheldon p. 7) , and even used FR groups themselves: "The rhetoric of "sex wars" has become a common theme both in the rhetoric of such [anti-feminist FR] groups and in much of the media reporting the debates and issues concerning father's rights." (Collier and Sheldon p. 8). That only "critics of the father's rights movement" propose this view thus appears unverifiable original research, and should be deleted as such.--Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources say that this "backlash" and "gender/sex wars" view."

  • (1) The [rise of the movement as a] backlash... and the [existence of] a gender/sex war are two different things. You are conflating these separate things into one "view."
  • (2) Your claim that a "number of authors" and "members of the media" is different from critics of the fathers' rights movement has two problems: (a) backlash and gender war are two different things and (b) a "number of authors" and "members of the media" is not inconsistent with "critics of the fathers' rights movement."
  • (3) Members of the fathers' rights movement do not view their movement as a "backlash" to gains made by women. Members of the fathers' rights movement view the term backlash as rhetoric used by gender feminists but not equity feminists.
  • (4) One of the sources clearly show the term backlash as being connected with critics of the fathers' rights movement.
  • (5) While you may be arguing on this page that members of the fathers' rights movement subscribe to the gender war view, I note that the article already includes a sentence stating that "members of the fathers' rights movement use rhetoric."
  • (6) Pfhorrest suggested below that the backlash view is an "accusation" against the fathers' rights movement: "Some (gender feminists?) accuse the father's rights movement (the conservative branch especially?) of being a backlash against feminism." Michael H 34 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Michel H 34
Michael, I am not trying to claim or argue anything except that we need to faithfully reflect our sources. Collier and Sheldon mention the gender wars and backlash in the same breath, not me. Collier and Sheldon report that this view is held by the media/among a number of authors/the FRM, not me. What Collier and Sheldon don't say is that this view is held by "critics of the FRM". Nor does anybody else that I know of. Clearly some who hold this view seem to be 'critics of the FRM' but are all of them 'critics'? Are even most of them 'critics'? Or is it just an isolated few? I have no idea, but in any case, my and your and Pfhorrest's opinions/educated guesses on the matter are irrelevant. We have to stick closely to the sources that we have, which at the moment do not support the edit that this is a view held only by critics of the FRM movement. If there is a reliable source that attributes the backlash/gender war view(s) to opponents of movement let's have it, and of course the sentence can be modified to include the new information. --Slp1 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As an explanation of the rise of the FRM, the term backlash is an accusation based on the following idea: The government must protect us from those "dangerous" members of the fathers' rights movement, who will try to whip us cruelly. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

What is your source, for this edit, Michael?[142] I requested a reliable source stating that the backlash and/or gender view is the view of critics, and instead you have simply reinserted a modification of your (to my mind unsourced POV) edit stating that "critics of the the movement" hold these views. This time you have separated the attribution of the "backlash" view and the "gender wars" theory, using the same three references to cite both. Can you please provide the quotations from the texts cited that make clear that it is only critics that subscribe to the backlash view, while both critics and other commentators subscribe to the 'gender wars' view? Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You added all three sources. Ciara Doyle is clearly a critic of the fathers' rights movement. She states that she is unapologetically polemical. Are we supposed to ignore this statement? Collier and Sheldon are the authors of the other two sources, and they state that people hold this view. Critics of the fathers' rights movement are people and there is no conflict between the sources.

If people who are not critics of the FRM hold the view that the rise of the movement is the result of backlash, then it is you who should find the source. If you do find a reliable source, then I will agree to change the sentence. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually, no, you have to justify your edits since you are the one who has changed the sentence. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" WP:V. And I have I given you the sources to justify this edit above[143] and of course in the article itself. But it seems you didn't check them. So to spell it out once again. "One explanation that has proved attractive to some parts of the media is the idea of "backlash""[144], "A number of authors have sought an explanation for this phenomenon in the compelling pictures of backlash" Collier and Sheldon p.7. Now please justify your edit that critics are the only one who hold the backlash view or revert your edit. And please avoid faulty logic such as "Critics of the fathers' rights movement are people and there is no conflict between the sources". Broccoli is a vegetable, but not all vegetables are broccoli. Critics of the fathers rights movement are certainly people, but not all people are critics of the FRM. Find some sources. --Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, it is very clear that you have to justify your edit since you are the one who changed the sentences after I edited them based on justification that has not yet been challenged.
Are you trying to suggest that Ciara Doyle is not a critic of the fathers' rights movement?
Are you suggesting that other authors cannot be critics of the fathers' rights movement?
In addition, why did Collier qualify his statement about the media with the word some? This is because some, but not all parts of the media are critics of the fathers' rights movement. The use of the word some to qualify his statement adds support to my version of these two sentences. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You are the last editor to edit that sentence, Michael. You are the one who has to provide verification of your edit. But to answer your questions. Yes, Doyle would be classified as a critic. So it is certainly verifiable that critics form a portion of those who hold the backlash view. However, while it is certainly possible that the "a number of authors" and the "some media" referred to by C and S are all be critics of the movement, but it is equally possible that they are not. The C and S say nothing about it either way. Red Herring questions "Are you suggesting that other authors cannot be critics of the FRM?" are based on fallacies as I have indicated above. If you want to argue that only "critics" hold this view, then you need to provide some concrete evidence for this statement. --Slp1 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of my opinion as being based on a red herring and fallacies is noted as another attempt to diminish the weight of my views, and an example of a red herring. However, as you point out, C&S were not specific about who subscribed to the belief that the rise of the movement is the result of backlash to increasing female power. We can either characterize Ciara Doyle as a critic of the FRM or we can ignore the characterization that she is a critic of the FRM. I believe that the former is more appropriate. If you can find another author who states that the rise of the FRM is a result of backlash to the rise of the power of women, and if that author can reasonably be considered not to be a critic of the fathers' rights movement, then I will agree to a change. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

It's currently moot, but that's not the way it works, Michael. You made this edit[145] and per policy you have to justify that it is verifiable from reliable sources, not try to pass the buck to me. --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In my view, I did justify the edit, and you agreed that Ciara Doyle was a critic of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

An attempt at consensus

Hello everyone. I've been watching this page since I added the Rights template to it, and so I've been observing this dispute here. I am by no means an expert on this topic, but I thought I'd chime in with a neutral third party's point of view on what I believe would be a viable consensus between both parties. From the article and this discussion here, there seems to be rough agreement that:

  1. There are, at least in some views, two branches of the father's rights movement: a "conservative" branch and a "liberal" branch.
    1. The "conservative" branch:
      1. is concerned with the preservation of the "traditional family" (what some feminists might call "patriarchy")
      2. opposes feminism in general for its encroachment thereupon, making no distinction between different types of feminism.
    2. The "liberal" branch:
      1. is concerned with preventing and eliminating inequalities disfavoring fathers
      2. distinguishes between two branches of feminism:
        1. Gender feminism, which it opposes, and accuses of misandry and gynocentrism.
        2. Equity feminism, which it supports, sharing largely similar goals of equality.

(Stated another, more concise and perhaps even more neutral way: conflict exists between the "conservative" branch of the FRM and all feminists, and between gender feminists and all of the FRM, but not between equity feminists and the "liberal" branch of the FRM).

Further:

  1. Some (gender feminists?) accuse the father's rights movement (the conservative branch especially?) of being a backlash against feminism.
  2. Others dispute that view.

If both sides of this dispute agree to all of the above, which I suspect they will, and you can supply me with reliable sources for all of these component points, I will gladly volunteer to go through the article and adjust things as necessary to achieve neutrality. -Pfhorrest (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments here, Pfhorrest. It really is great to get some other voices involved. My personal preference is generally to start with the sources, and write material from them, so this is a different approach. However, I think the problem is that based on the sources I know about, only part of what you have written above is actually sourceable from reliable sources. For example, we have no reliable sources talking about the gender feminism/equity feminism aspects in relation to the FRM. I don't know if you're willing, but p. 97-8 of this book available on googlebooks [146] provides the most detailed explanation of the two wings if you wanted to read it. It might help to see what we are trying to summarize. --Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I take the Buddhist view here. There are no two wings of the Fathers' rights movement.

Here's an interesting article about Wikipedia and the meaning of "truth" from Technology Review: [147] Michael H 34 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Ok, so it seems that Michael denies any distinction between two branches of the FRM, and Slp questions the reliability of sources regarding the FRM's distinguishing between two types of feminism.

In response to the former: Michael, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but Slp has provided a source[148] which shows that at least someone holds there to be two branches to the FRM. So unless you can show the unreliability of that source, that view should be included in the article (though of course qualified as someone's view, not necessarily The Truth; and if you have another source which disputes that view, we should include that as well).

In response to the latter: Slp, Michael has provided a source[149] which shows that at least someone in the FRM distinguishes between gender and equity types of feminism. Since you've already replied to him about that and have clearly read it, I reason you must question its reliability. I would like to ask on what criteria exactly you deny its notability, since it would be good, even if for nothing else than the sake of compromise, to include that position if there is no policy violation in doing so. -Pfhorrest (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Phhorrest. Yes, I asked at the WP:RSN (as noted above) who determined that the blog post would not be an appropriate inclusion: Garrett Luttrell is a non-notable blogger and using his view would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to it.[150]. As I have said several times, I would be more than happy for reliably sourced contrasting views to be included, but to date none has been found. FYI, and for what its worth, there is more than one reliable source talking about the wings (and the anti-feminism of one branch, which has been a particular bone of contention.) I listed the main ones in this post [151] with some of the key supporting phrases (and in the article of course).--Slp1 (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of "Main Issues" section

I have boldly moved the "Government" and "No-fault divorce" sections lower in the "Main issues" section of the article. I believe that having them as the first and second sections gave undue weight to them given that sources seem to talk about joint custody, visitation, child support, parental alienation, allegations of violence etc as the main issues of the movement [152][153][154]. While the no-fault divorce section is obviously about divorce, most sources seem to talk about NF Divorce mainly in the context of development of the movement [155] rather than as a more prominent area of campaigning than the child custody issues etc. I am very open to being corrected on this matter, of course. --Slp1 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact find some more info about no-fault divorce and the FRM after all, so have added what I have found.--Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with acting boldly! In my opinion, it is acceptable to demote no-fault divorce in relation to the other issues.

Please consider though that it is Fathers' rights and government (and not anything else) to which all of the main issues are connected. One could say that Fathers' rights and government is the only main issue, and all of the other issues are particular issues related to Fathers' rights and government. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Latest edits

  • I'm guessing that this edit [156], citing Kaye and Tolmie to support a phrase about Baskerville is a typo. They don't mention Baskerville at all.
  • Could you possibly give me the quote from Kaye and Tolmie to verify your addition here [157] that "the parent initiating the divorce" is viewed as the deserting parent?
  • This edit,[158] deleting well-sourced information about the harassment/violence tactics of some members of the movement and replacing it with a positive spin indicating that some groups have condemned such things, is distinctly POV, and not representative of Flood nor of the available sources. I note that other reliably sourced evidence of violence and harassment by members of the movement has also been removed in the past year.--Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions are a defense of original research. I changed the edit because it was clearly based on original research. The Black Shirts were connected to fathers' rights groups by editors here ("fathers group" and "militant mens group" is not the same as a fathers' rights groups) and not by Mr. Flood or by the online newspaper. The information that I replaced it with was clearly sourced by Mr. Flood (whether or not you prefer to call it "spin") and is not the result of original research. Please review the sources. Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I did review the sources. Did you? Specifically, did you read the Herald Sun article entitled "Stalker: lesson learned" that I cited? I guess not, because if you had then you would have seen that it reads "Blackshirts leader John Abbott has vowed to mend his protesting ways after being spared jail for stalking. The outspoken fathers' rights campaigner, who was sentenced by a County Court judge to a suspended term of four months, said he had learned his lesson." It really is MOST inappropriate to accuse people of original research without reading the sources involved. If you don't have access to them, then request the information you require here on the talkpage before making accusations. And if you want further confirmation that the Blackshirts is viewed as a fathers' rights group see this [159], this [160] and even Flood's own website [161] --Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from Kaye and Tolmie:

A number of groups283 support the reintroduction of the concept of fault into divorce proceedings. The Family Law Reform Association NSW Inc seems to go further and favour the introduction of considerations of fault into the counselling process and/or child custody decisions when it submits that "counsellors shouldn't support the parent who has taken the child from the marriage".284 Lone Fathers also argues that the deserting parent should be given less consideration “before the Family Court", and that sole parenting should be awarded to the parent who "most responsible” during the separation, but does not indicate how responsibility is to be measured or whether it. Considered as it is manifested towards the children or towards the other spouse.285

Implicit in some of these submissions appears to be the feeling that women are at fault for leaving their marriages286 and that, when fault is not factored into property and custody proceedings, this behaviour is either encouraged, or men fail to get appropriate recognition of their innocence. For example, the Non-Custodial Parents Reform Group argues that many non-custodial parents are forced out of marriage by the custodial parent and that the current family law system makes a farce of marriage because the non-custodial parent then loses the marriage, the bulk of their property and life savings, and access to the children without any compensation.287 Michael H 34 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Michel H 34

There is nothing in this section about Fathers' rights groups thinking that the "parent initiating the divorce" should be given less consideration before the family court. There is no mention of initiating divorce at all. --Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of deserting parents and including the words "the parent initiating the divorce" is merely clarifying for the reader. Some parents abandon the other parent to raise the children while other parents leave the marriage and use the government to take the children. I see your point though and I will make an edit. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
[162] Michael, it is still totally unverifiable, though thanks for trying. Initiating a divorce is not the same as being a deserting parent. A "deserting" parent is the parent who leaves the house. The parent who actually initiates divorce proceedings could be the person who leaves or the person who is left behind. K and T don't say a thing about what FRA think about the person who actually initiates divorce in this section.--Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I recall that previously on this page you enlightened me about what Collier meant by the facts of power. Please trust me here. In this case, the Lone Fathers consider mothers who initiate divorce as deserting their marriage. If I am not correct about this, then the quote is completely out of place within the paragraph. Why then do the authors include this quote in this paragraph? Michael H 34 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Reference to "deserting" is right after "counsellors shouldn't support the parent who has taken the child from the marriage". Michael H 34 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Trust has nothing to do with it, Michael. You may well be right. But the point is that K and T do not say that "Lone Fathers consider mothers who initiate divorce as deserting their marriage". It says that the Lone Fathers argue "that the "deserting parent" should be given less consideration before the Family Court". Part of the problem here may be the ambiguity of 'deserting parent' phrase. You seem to be interpreting it as deserting the marriage, while I interpret it as deserting the home/children. Given my interpretation, a parent could certainly desert the home/children but not actually initiate the divorce per se. For example one parent could leave because they are having an affair, and the affronted spouse might initiate the divorce. Deserting and initiating divorce are not synonymous. K and T do not talk about initiating divorce at all. If it's not there, we can't add it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"For example one parent could leave because they are having an affair, and the affronted spouse might initiate the divorce." These fathers' rights activists would respond that the initiation of divorce in your hypothetical case could and would be justified based on the "fault" of the unfaithful spouse who would be seen as having "deserted" the marriage first.
"Truth has nothing to do with it." My view is that truth does matter based on the Wikipedia policy of ignore all rules. In my view it is not acceptable, and a disservice to the reader, to use Wikipedia policy to justify being ambiguous and unclear.
"Part of the problem here may be the ambiguity of 'deserting parent' phrase." Yes, and I have added clarification to include both meanings by adding the parenthetical phrase: (including the parent who initiates the divorce). I will make another edit to be even clearer. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

(outdent) I actually said "trust has nothing to do with it" not "truth". As I have explained many times, Wikipedia seeks to summarize the best available sources out there about article topics. We are not here to improve on them. In the sources cited I see nothing at all about who is considered to be a deserting parent. I certainly trust and believe that you feel you are clearing up ambiguity, but the fact is that you are inserting your own original research about the matter, since you have produced no reliable source for the statement. You would like Wikipedia to "trust" that you have the truth about the opinions of FR activists, and that adding this view makes things clearer for readers. But we can't and it doesn't. --Slp1 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"But we can't and it doesn't." Slp1, in my view you are attempting to use Wikipedia policy to obfuscate and confuse readers. Why?

You have admitted to the ambiguity of the deserting parent phrase and you have provided no reason why a statement about deserting parents based on another interpretation would be included by Kaye and Tolmie in a section about no-fault divorce. My clarification of what is meant by deserting parent puts these Australian members of the FRM in agreement with the Libertarian cited by Steven Baskerville.

I am encouraged to improve the article. I have and I will. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please read more closely. I have repeatedly explained to you why you cannot "clarify" or "improve" the article with your original research/opinion. If Baskerville really talks about what the Australian members of the FRM movement mean by "deserting fathers" then provide the citation and I will be delighted to accept its inclusion. --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only your claim that it is original research. It is very obvious to me what is meant by deserting in this case. Once again, you have not explained why the "deserting" sentence exists directly after the sentence that includes "counsellors shouldn't support the parent who has taken the child from the marriage". Once again I note your willingness to use Wikipedia policy to try prevent others from improving the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

There is nothing at all about deserting parents including those initiate "a divorce without justification" in your highlighted statement "counsellors shouldn't support the parent who has taken the child from the marriage".
You said: "It is very obvious to me what is meant by deserting in this case". Precisely. It is obvious to you, but it is not contained in the source cited. This is exactly what original research is, which does not improve any article, as has already been pointed out to you by another editor onn this page [163]--Slp1 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In your view, the clarification for the reader is original research. In my view, it is not original research, but rather, it is a clarification for the reader. As editors we have the benefit of context from the source, but the reader does not have this benefit. Again, you have failed to provide a context of the word "deserting" from the source which is contrary to the clarification that I provided for the reader. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Some changes

Obviously, for anyone watching the page, I've made some changes. A lot of it is pretty simple stuff - adjusting references/footnotes and WP:MOS stuff. I've yet to read through the debate because the issues I tried to correct seemed pretty simple and inarguable. My more recent edits would not be seen this way - I've adjusted the lead and made some changes to history. There's a bunch of basic wording, sourcing and placement issues that need to be addressed and for the most part I don't believe they'll be controversial. But anyway, I'll try to get to the talk page and not make any blatantly controversial edits; I see the changes I'm making as pretty basic (though no-one may agree with me) and am trying to adjust based on the sources that are proximal and don't require interpretation or background knowledge. We'll see how successful I am. Anyway, out of time, leaving. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you did a very good job. Well done. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Yes, thanks. As you work away on this, I have a couple thoughts to add to the mix:
  • I support the emphasis on reliable, scholarly, secondary sources as much as possible. Although we made an editorial decision a while ago that primary sources such as the websites of advocacy groups (for and against) could be used, these should be replaced by secondary sources as much as possible, since these have proved to be available. For most of the article this shouldn't be too difficult and I will do my best to find these.
  • A related issue is that statements of belief about various issues by "members of the fathers' rights movement" or "critics of the movement" are often cited to only one reference, and when looked at closely appear reflect the opinion of one person or group. I think it would be good to confirm that these really are representative beliefs of the movement or critics, and secondary sources should help with this too.
  • Baskerville is extensively cited here. He has the advantage of being an academic (at the conservative Patrick Henry College) and published by a reliable source. However, it concerns me that the book has a strong US-focus [164]. In two cases, No fault divorce and Government involvement, whole sections are cited (mainly or entirely) to his book. I am worried about one country-specific source being cited as the attitudes of the FRM without much (or any) additional corroboration. Once again, looking for sourcing might help.--Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add that I disagree with the recreation of a "Criticism" section. These sections are deprecated per WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRIT --Slp1 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[After quoting an article by Melanie Phillips, a journalist from England, Baskerville states the following: "All this is usually dismissed, when it is recognized as at all, as the product of 'prejudice' or 'gender bias'. Such jargon does not begin to explain what is taking place. What we confront here is a bureacratic machine of a kind that has never before been seen in the United States or the other English-speaking democracies." Taken Into Custody... pages 18-19 Michael H 34 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The words "throughout the United States and other democracies" was included in the first paraphrased sentence of the section titled Government Involvement. I added them to the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, Baskerville mentions other countries, but that doesn't mean that the book isn't highly US centric. The front inside cover makes this clear: "Why is the American Family in crisis? Political scientist Stephen Baskerville argues that the most direct cause is the divorce industry itself: a corrupt government run system that abuses parents and children, runs rampant over civil liberties, steals the wealth of families and is accountable to noone. Nothing like this has ever happened before in America." One of 6 chapters is even entitled "Divorce and the Constitution". However, the US-centric nature of the book is only a minor part of my reservations about this material. We currently have two whole sections cited entirely (or almost entirely) to the views of one man. Unless we can find evidence that these views are more widely held, then I think this is a clear case of giving undue weight to a topic. --Slp1 (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The words "throughout the United States and other democracies" was used. I also disagree with your other view as well. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
The ACFC sponsored a public relations campaign for Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers' Marriage and the Family, Dr. Baskerville's book. [165] The first paraphrased sentence in the section titled Government Involvement (Taken Into Custody... - page 18) starts, "The argument of this book is that governments throughout the United States and other democracies...." Michael H 34 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
On the one hand we have "ACFC is continuing to publicize and promote Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, by ACFC president Stephen Baskerville." and on the other we have "The argument of this book is that governments throughout the United States and other democracies...." I submit that ACFC would not "publicize and promote" an "important breakthrough" book, if they did not agree with the stated argument of the book. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I don't find it at all surprising that ACFC is supporting and is helping promote a book by their president. In fact would be very surprising if they weren't. But if we are going to have whole sections about 'government involvement' and 'no-fault divorce' we need to find more voices saying that this is an important concern for the FRM. After all, if it is an important viewpoint of the FRM then it should be easy to find other references saying similar things.(see WP:UNDUE). --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I view the sections about Government Involvement and No-fault divorce as very important. To address your concern, I willingly accepted your move of these sections toward the bottom of the article, giving them less weight. I thank you for adding the information about No-fault divorce from Kaye and Tolmie. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

[166] Michael H 34 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

[167] Michael H 34 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I apologize for the delay in responding. I have been very busy. I realize that you think that these sections are important, but our personal opinions as editors are not really the point here. When we are looking at undue weight issues, we have to see whether a view is considered significant by reliable sources, and by the prevalence of those opinions. WP:UNDUE is very clear about this. As currently written and sourced it is clear that in the no-fault divorce and government involvement sections, we are in danger of giving undue weight to the views of one man. It may well be there are other sources saying similar things about these subjects being discussed etc by members of the FRM (other than Baskerville). I will certainly search for confirming sources in the various material I have, just as I did when I found the Kaye and Tolmie material for part of the no-fault divorce section. I would encourage you to do the same. --Slp1 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Michael. Thank you for trying to find additional citations, but since the article has been critiqued by others for its sourcing and verifiability I have am going to express some concerns. Let's start with the first one.
Do you have any evidence that Nathanson and Young are members of the fathers' rights movement as these edits suggest?[168][169] I myself can't find an affiliation of any kind. --Slp1 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the book itself is clear evidence. Baskerville makes the same assertion about how the legal system fosters cynicism. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This may be evidence as well: [170] Michael H 34 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: [171] Michael H 34 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

We can't say that a person is a member of the FR movement without clearer evidence than this. The book doesn't say that they are members, and their appearance at a men's conference [172] to talk about boy's coming of age in today's society doesn't show that they are either. --Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The conference was filed by Glenn Sacks under several categories including fathers' rights. This and based on what they have written, I cannot honestly exclude Nathanson and Young as members of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
This is a question of inclusion, not exclusion. If the article is going to claim N and Y as members of the FRM then we need positive evidence that they are members of the movement. How Glenn Sacks chooses to file his posts and your personal opinion of their writings is not enough unfortunately. Is there a reliable source that says that N and Y belong to a FR group or support the movement in some other way? Do N and Y mention that they are involved in one of their books or on a website they write on? --Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Although you labeled the conference as a men's conference, you left out the word equality. Glenn Sacks included fathers' rights as one of the categories for the conference, and Matt O'Connor, Glenn Sacks and Stephen Baskerville spoke at the Third National Men's Equality Conference. In my view, the presentation by Nathanson and Young at the Third National Men's Equality Conference and Legalizing Misandry.... both support the FRM. This is enough evidence in my view, but I'll try to find additional support. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Please do find additional support. Speaking at a Men's Equality conference on "Boys and the Boy Crisis", with the specific talk title "Coming of Age as a Villain: What Young Men Need to Know in a Misandric World") shows nothing about their membership in the fathers' rights movement. In any case, the text currently reads as if N and Y agree with the statements about the government having a campaign against fathers, destroying families, undermining parents, threatening marriage, devastating the lives of children, etc etc, when on p. 143 [173] they say nothing of the sort. What they do say that the so-called criminalization of fathers under the auspices of pursuing "deadbeat dads" is a situation that "would endanger any free society", a much more specific argument. The sentence as written seems to be clear example of original synthesis and failed verifiability. --Slp1 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia Policy that requires that an entire sentence be supported by a citation at the end of the sentence? Michael H 34 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

"In any case, the text currently reads as if N and Y agree...." I disagree with you. Nathanson and Young are not identified in the sentence. Please remove the tag. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

per WP:V "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article". The disputed sentence [174] is introduced by the phrase, "Members of the fathers' rights movement state" (note the plural) and this is followed by statements about the government having a campaign against fathers, destroying families etc etc. The two citations given are those of Baskerville, and Nathanson and Young, and to passages in which they describe their own opinions, not those of the FRM per se. N and Y are identified here by virtue of the plural of "Members". The problems are that there is no evidence
  • that N and Y are viewed by by independent sources as members of the fathers' rights movement, or that they view themselves as such; or
  • that N and Y support the idea that the government is organizing a campaign against fathers, undermining parents, threatening marriage etc.
The only part of the sentence that is verifiable from N and Y is, as I pointed out above, the "would endanger any free society" part, but this is referring to the specific issue of the criminalization of 'deadbeat dads', not to the larger issues that you have linked it to. This is WP:SYNTH, joining two verifiable sources to make a new point. This post,[175] about a previous edit you made, at the No original research noticeboard might help explain the issues I am having, and that I am not alone in these concerns. On the positive side, please note that I consider this edit [176] a helpful one that is verifiable and does not contain synthesis. And I do appreciate the work you are putting into trying to additional sources to support these sections.
I will remove the tag but with it the material that appears to unverifiable synthesis. Since "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:V), if you disagree, please get consensus before you restore it. You may well find other sources that will convince, (and I will look too) or you could ask for another opinion at the WP:NORN. I will happily abide by any consensus achieved here or elsewhere.--Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence stated that the government is endangering a free society, and it is the government that criminalizes fathers. In my view, this was not synthesis. I will also reiterate that to me, Legalizing Misandry... by virtue of its criticism of the legal system and family law alone, is clear and convincing evidence that N & Y are members of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Not really. The full sentence is "This [the monitoring of fathers who owe child support] is a situation that would endanger any free society", not as you have stated above. But even if the sentence did say what you claim, the previous version would still be unverifiable since N and Y say nothing about "a campaign against fathers and fatherhood" which they were previously being cited as saying. --Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you that a citation must support an entire sentence. In one view, we have N & Y asserting that [the government's monitoring of citizens] creates a situation that endangers a free society, and in another we have N & Y asserting that [the monitoring of citizens] endangers a free society. The term "Legalizing" in the title of the book provides some support for the former, but I'll agree with the consensus decision. I should point out that it is all citizens who are monitored. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Well the problem, as I have indicated, what less to do with the issue of how you chose to interpret the "free society" phrase, and more to do with the fact that the N&Y book does not corroborate the "campaign against fathers and fatherhood" concept. If you disagree that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article" then you might want to try to change the policy at WP:V. N&Y didn't support the information in this case, and I thank you for accepting this. In the meantime, can you please provide the phrases from one or more of the citations cited that justify this edit[177] that some FRM support the end of the no-fault principle in child custody (as opposed to divorce) decisions? I removed the child custody part because I couldn't find anything to verify it in the sources cited, but maybe I have missed something. Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "campaign on fathers and fatherhood" is a major component of the sentence.

The edit in the no-fault section included the following actions: (1) One sentence was separated into two sentences in order to avoid the inference that all members of the fathers' rights movement either support limitations on no-fault divorce when children are involved or support the elimination of the no-fault principle and (2) the edit added the words "child custody and" prior to divorce decisions.

In section 2.1, the Cheltenham Group defined "No-fault principles" as follows:

2.1 ‘No-fault divorce’ principle

A ‘no-fault divorce’ system has been introduced by the senior judges, against the principles laid down by Parliament in the written laws, and without public approval or knowledge, specifically :

with respect to custody of children (since 1948, Allen v Allen, CoA) that mothers are given custody of children after separation/divorce, no matter what their behaviour in the case.... Michael H 34 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

  1. ^ Williams, Gwyneth I. (2003). "Framing in the Fathers' Rights Movement". In Donileen R. Loseke, Joel Best (ed.). Social Problems: Constructionist Readings. Aldine Transaction. pp. 93–100. ISBN 9780202307039. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference gavanas04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference kaye was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference fralr1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Collier, R (2006-11-01). "Unfamiliar territory: The issue of a father's rights and responsibilities covers more than just the media-highlighted subject of access to his children". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-10-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fathers%27_rights_movement/Archive_3&oldid=1142760861"