Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 4

message: Can we get a wiki Father's Rights button? Ks64q2 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean an interwiki?  Those are only to projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation.  At best that would get a external link, but WP:ELNO says no wikis in the EL section.  There would have to be an indication that the wiki was stable, reliable, and with high standards for sourcing.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's Rights button 

message: This edit by Michael H 34 adds a reference to Farrell's Father and Child reunion, giving a page range of 1-25.
Michael H, per WP:Vcan you please give the precise page number that verifies the sentence about women in the FRM, and since the book is not available online, type out the appropriate sentences from Farrell below so that the content can be verified?  Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have edited this page, you must have seen this, so can you provide this information please? Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add that citation.  I restored the sentence based on the article that appeared in the Minnesota Star-Tribune.  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you did add the citation, here . And you know that that the Minnesota Star-Tribune is not an adequate source per the WP:RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not the editor who first added the citation to the article.  I removed the citation.  Michael H 34 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both true, though you did readd it, no?  But I appreciate that you did remove it, and alter the sentence that something that can be verified by you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification request 

message: *WLU  brings up a subject that that I have long been concerned with and have wished to address in this article. .  Stephen Baskerville's book (which remains unreviewed by any independent source, as far as I can see) is used to cite large chunks of this article. Very frequently, B's book is given as the one and only source for a statement saying "Members of the Fathers' Rights Movement state...".  Baskerville is not "Members (plural) of the FRM" making the sentences unverifiable, and unless there is some evidence that other members of the FRM concur, almost certainly undue weight is being given to the views of this one activist.  Baskerville is just one example of a larger article trend that in which what is claimed to be the core views of the FRM have been extrapolated from the many and various opinions expressed on/in fathers' rights activists' websites/speeches/books.  Where multiple sources converge on a particular point, this may be reasonable, but where it appears that only one person/group has made the point then there is a strong danger that original research  and/or advocacy is taking place, and/or that undue weight is being given to it.   I should point out that this problem of verifiability, attribution, undue weight, also applies to some beginning "critics state...". In order to make clear the extent of the problem, I will correctly attribute some of the sections particularly affected, starting from the bottom.
*In my view, the best way of dealing with this issue will be to rework this article to include information sourced to secondary sources (journals, books, newspapers) written about the movement, rather than cherry picking points from material by the movement. It is clear from WP:V and WP:RS that these sources are preferred in writing articles, and luckily it turns out that there are now many academic and research papers and books written about the movement, as well as numerous news and magazine articles discussion the movement's goals and activities. 
*It is my intention to begin this process fairly soon. Policy-based comments on this proposal would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Baskerville certainly is not the most reliable of sources - their webpage doesn't appear on the first page of the google search.  As far as I can tell, they're part of Sourcebooks, but can't really tell much from that.  Certainly doesn't have the impact or reliability of a scholarly publishing house.  I've posted a question at the reliable sources noticeboard.  I agree that research on the FRM is preferred as a source to research or opinions by the FRM.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Baskerville isn't the best of sources and doesn't have the most impressive publisher, but I do think it is a reliable source; particularly for the opinion of Stephen Baskerville, a prominent American FR activist.  My point has less to do with the reliability of the work per se and more to the fact that his views have been presented, over and over again, as core beliefs of the FRM (e.g what Members of the FRM state....), without any evidence that he is speaking for anybody other himself.  If you look at his book you will find he is, for the most part, he is making a specific personal argument, and not talking about the FRM or their views at all. This contrasts with academic sources such as Bertoia, Crowley, Gavanas, Collier etc who as academics from a variety of disciplines have stood back, studied multiple FR groups and individuals, analyzed their views, and synthesized the primary positions, attitudes and action points of FR groups. Per WP policy, these kind of secondary sources are to be preferred, rather than picking out points from speeches and books by Baskerville, Schafly etc. We need to include the points that have been noticed by independent sources.  That's not to say that the secondary sources won't actually support Baskerville's points.  Glancing through Crowley, for example, I note that some points made by Baskerville about no-fault divorce are reported by her to be a frequent viewpoint of members FRM.  --Slp1 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any scholarly sources that agree with Baskerville, I'd certainly substitute.  I think Baskerville is adequate for any points that aren't particularly controversial and not otherwise verified, but aside from that it's not a great source.  So basically, good changes and good suggestions!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability/Sourcing/Attribution/Undue 

message: In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed (cf infanticide article). ADM (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathers' rights to infanticide 

message: This seems like a highly controversial site.  I don't mean to add to the controversy, but many I know in the Alimony Reform movement share the same values and goals of the FRM.  For many men, large, life-time alimony award to working ex-wifes prevent career moves that would enable more time for children and child raising.  
We also believe that the current laws on alimony encourage acrimonious legal battles between parting spouses that ultimately hurt children by creating a hostile divorce environment.  Clear alimony guidelines (the goal of Alimony Reform) to replace vague state statues and complex case law would make divorces less contentious.  
I have added alimony reform as another aspect of the Fathers' Rights movement in the introduction.  I would like to add a section on this unless others widely object.
02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have added unverifiable information to the lead. So I have removed it (again). If you have a source, that this is a concern for the FRM, not just your opinion, then please produce it. And  read WP:LEAD too.   Per this guideline, the introduction must summarize the article.  If it ain't in the article it doesn't go in the lead (especially followed by a citation that doesn't verify the information) Add information (sourced to concerns about the FRM) to the text, and then we can discuss the lead.--Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but I cannot emphasize enough that what you believe is irrelevant here. This seems to be the big problem with your edits.  You seem to want the WP articles to reflect your opinion/belief/research.  This is not what we do here.  We summarize what the best and highest quality sources that we can find. Start with them.  Not your belief about what is right/true. --Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alimony Reform 

message: Reading the sources in this article appears that the Fathers' rights movement is strongest in the UK and the US.  Is this generally true?
Also, can anybody tell me if Alimony a consequence of divorce in ADDITION to CHILD SUPPORT anywhere outside the US - especially in the UK?
PTiger1985 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Fathers' Right Movement= 

message: Blog sites soliciting participation in an activist action such as this one  is a thoroughly inappropriate citation for Wikipedia.  If thisre is a notable/significant campaign, find a reliable independent source mentioning it. This edit  of Michael H34 also introduced non-verifiable material and original research.  None of the citations given support the view that FRG's groups work toward "an end to parental alienation"--Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog sites 

message: Did the authors cited say that "approximately 15%" of the fathers' rights movement are women or did they report the results of their studies?  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Once a group’s leader agreed to be interviewed, I requested permission to ask for members to participate. Using this snowball sampling technique, I was able to secure a total of 158 interviews, of which 23 were with women." 
What is the conclusion of the author?  Michael H 34 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: We've been through this before. As has already been pointed out we have two scholarly empirical studies, both of which found approximately 15% membership by women. One summarizes the finding by saying that women "occasionally" join the FRM. The other concludes that it is made up "mostly" of men. Since I suspect your goal here is remove this figure (as it is contrary to a central talking point of the FRM), I will ask you, do you have any empirical studies to offer that would contradict this finding? If you do, let's have the citations. --Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you the first six months ago in June 2009.. A link to an accessible  Crowley reference was given in February 2009  and in another version above on page 113. Please review previous posts instead of asking for information already given to you.--Slp1 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not able to open the link.  Please provide the quote.  Thank you !  Michael H 34 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Which link are you having trouble with? --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm having access problems.  If you can copy and paste the quote that would be great.  Thank you!  Michael H 34 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you having trouble accessing? Please specify. --Slp1 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide the quote to support the statement that you added to the article. I am not able to find it.  Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two independent empirical studies have found female membership in the FRM at approximately 15%. If you have other empirical studies with different findings, please produce them. You are welcome to check the studies and their findings and conclusions; I've given you multiple links to help you do this.  If you actually specify what you've been having trouble accessing I will be happy to help. Otherwise, I'm done here. --Slp1 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation Requested 

message: The site for the Family Law Gazette, at www.familylawgazette.com, has some provocative postings related to family law policy. It might be useful to include it in the external links section.
66.158.8.42 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds impressive, but the Family Law Gazette is actually a non-notable personal blog as far as I can see.  As such it doesn't meet the grade for external links.--Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathers' Rights, family law information link 

message: It appears that Stephen Baskerville has been an important leader in this movement.  However, this article currently reads like a press release for Professor Baskerville, with lots of citations that result in circular references back to the article.  I'd like to clean things up in a respectful manner that gives Baskerville credit, but which makes the language more encyclopedic.  I'd also like to fix the references.  However, since I am the new kid on this block, I want to make sure I get editor consensus before I proceed.  Thanks!  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ebikeguy.  I couldn't agree with you more.  I made a similar point about 18 months ago,  but haven't been able to get up the strength to do anything about it given the time sink of the squabbling you can see above. As you can see here when we discussed it before, my thinking is that we actually may need to do a fairly major rewrite of those sections where Baskerville is quoted endlessly.  Per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc we should focus on what secondary sources say about the FRM and their issues, rather picking out issues from a primary source - a book by FR activist such as Baskerville -  as a sole source for "what FR issues" are. If his views are the views of the FRM it should be easy to find confirmation, as  there's plenty of scholarly articles and books out there, as well as newspaper articles about the movement. I can send you electronic copies if you like. There's also other areas where the sourcing could be be improved too, in my view, and I'd be happy to work with you on this. --Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Slp1.  I got caught up in the whole Rich Zubaty debate and forgot about this for a while.  I've got a crazy couple weeks coming up, but I will try to look at this again ASAP.  Cheers,  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see that Zubaty has got a podcast up which mentions the whole ghastly episode? Here's the text version.  Apparently you, as a delete-voter, are from Australia or New Zealand. Did you know that? ;-)  --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   Poor guy, so cruelly oppressed by the manholes of the world, not to mention those lesbian harpies.  In any case, I heard that New Zealand was recently ranked as one of the most peaceful places to live on the planet, so if Zubaty has conferred NZ citizenship on me, and it sticks, I say "Woohoo!"  Cheers,  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. NZ is place to aspire to.  It's amazingly beautiful and different. A great place to bike, I would think, though I've mostly hiked (or tramped, as they call it). --Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Baskerville 

message: In common parlance, children are "placed in foster care" (1.4 million google hits ); they are very rarely  "assigned to foster care"(2,880 hits ).  Given the huge difference in usage it is ludicrous to suggest that "placed in" is POV as has been suggested. Indeed, it is interesting to see many of the "assigned to foster care" usages refer to controlled studies in which researchers randomly assigned children to various care settings, not even the context here. I would argue these edits represent yet another (semi) subtle attempt of Michael H to push his point of view about how big, bad government is destroying families and assigning children to foster care as if in some giant experiment (see this edit ).  Michael H, if you still wish to dispute this point, please provide some concrete evidence about why this highly unusual formulation is to be preferred. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors of the main article on foster care seem to agree with Slp1.  The lead sentence in the lead paragraph reads, "Foster care is the term used for a system in which a minor who has been made a ward  is PLACED in the private home of a state certified caregiver referred to as a 'foster parent.'"  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foster care