Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: A unsigned ad is not a reliable source.--Slp1 19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the source.  Michael H 34 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Civil rights movement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  buying a baby 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links At End Of Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  N P O V declaration. 

message: 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)
thread_title: New background and history section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: The external links critical are problematic from my mind, here's why:
**First off, there are far more critical links than there are 'pro', presenting a problem of undue weight.  
*Backlash: Angry Men's Movements, by Michael Flood
*How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence, by Michael Flood
**Both these are self-published by Michael Flood, the first on Xlibris the second on his personal website; the first is already embedded as references and may not be a reliable source due to self-publication.  As a scholar, if the book was mainstream or even substantial minority, it would be published by a main-stream academic press.  The second is quite short, and should be integrated as a reference rather than an external link (if judged reliable, still in question).  
*Liznotes: The Liz Library
*Trish Wilson: The Women's Network
**These are a personal webpages, collecting a bunch of links.  Wikipedia is not a link directory, and in most cases we do not link to them either. 
*Stop Family Violence
**Advocacy site.  WP:ELNO #4, 
*An Open Letter To The Board Of The American Coalition Of Fathers And Children - Scroll Down
**This seems to be a blog, and contains substanital advertising.
*Parental Alienation Syndrome And Alienated Children: Getting It Wrong In Child Custody Cases, by Dr. Carol Bruch
**Parental alienation syndrome is not considered a valid diagnosis.  This is also not a scholarly or informative resource.  
*Abuse And Custody Disputes: Scientific And Legal Issues, by The Leadership Council
**Leadership council is a very POV agency, and wikipedia is not a how to manual.  This isn't really a reliable source and isn't really informative; it's a combination advocacy and legal instruction manual that is irrelevant outside of the United States, making it a violation of wikipedia's world-wide audience.  
*Federazione Nazionale per la Bigenitorialità, one of the major Italian movements for coparenting.
**This is in italian.  Non-english sources are OK, but not external links.  WLU (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , in my opinion easily meets the criteria for the reliability of self-published by an expert.Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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.  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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. (and see her post above). --Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legal Changes section

message: "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)
thread_title:  Parents Rights 

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

message: 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:
#There are, at least in some views, two branches of the father's rights movement: a "conservative" branch and a "liberal" branch.
##The "conservative" branch:
###is concerned with the preservation of the "traditional family" (what some feminists might call "patriarchy")
###opposes feminism in general for its encroachment thereupon, making no distinction between different types of feminism.
##The "liberal" branch:
###is concerned with preventing and eliminating inequalities disfavoring fathers
###distinguishes between two branches of feminism:
####Gender feminism, which it opposes, and accuses of misandry and gynocentrism.
####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:
#Some (gender feminists?) accuse the father's rights movement (the conservative branch especially?) of being a backlash against feminism.
#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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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..  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  with some of the key supporting phrases (and in the article of course).--Slp1 (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An attempt at consensus

message: 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 . 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ordering  of "Main Issues" section