Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 1

message: Criticisms, however, have been made to the actual number of women in divorce proceedings who falsibly make claims of violence against the father of the children.
We are not talking about a comparison between actual stated numbers, but a comparison with "the magnitude of claims made by fathers' rights proponents".
By the way, the description of "regardless" isn't quite accurate, say someone makes a claim against the father and it has been disproved before the father has made his counter-argumnt to the claim's falsity, then the father need not make the counter-argument since it has been disproved. 
Dysprosia 03:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of "criticism"

message: For a while I used a form at one of the charity's public weekly meetings in central London on which we asked attendees to indicate whether they had been subject to false allegations. About half the people ticked this box on average. We get 10-20 people at this meeting each week, about half of whom are new. A quick mental calculation gives an average of three (obviously unconfirmed - though there's generally no reason why people would make up most of the stories I hear) instances of false allegation per week, or 150 per year - in one area of London. FNF has two other branches in London as well as a scattering around England, Wales, Scotland and one in Northern Ireland, and is the largest and longest establshed such self-help group in Europe. But I would say that if just one child's relationship was affected with a parent who had been falsely accused and put in the position I described, that should be sufficient to cause alarm, so the size of the statistic is irrelevant to the argument. The fact is there are thousands of parents who find themselves in this situation every year.Stan 13:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the topic was the issue of whether the paragraph before was grammatically correct or not - now we are discussing whether the paragraph is factually correct or not. I have not claimed, by doing so, that the claims are unfounded, but that there has been criticism by others of the magnitude of the claims by some FR groups.  Whether what I have been contributing is correct or not should ideally be argued in the article unless you have a very serious problem with what I am writing in the article. Dysprosia 22:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: False allegations

message: Matthew, isn't it about time you chopped up the page into subsections? It has reached a point where it is too big to read or edit.
--John Foley 01:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Perhaps you haven't read The Trial. The reason why The Trial is a classic is because it really drives home the message about how state bureaucracy can alter people's lives in a non-totaliotarian context, and the family court system really is like that. I had hoped that, through the stuff and the links I've been putting into this article, you might see that. Having read the book I can testify from personal experience of having helped many fathers through my charity work that what fathers have to go through in this circumstance is very similar, and Kafkaesque is the only correct term. Many people use this term in the context of family law and I would expect people using an encyclopedia easily to be able to look it up. Please would you put it back. Matt Stan 22:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I missed that point you were trying to make. Perhaps you should explain in the article the reference you are trying to make in with the reference to the book, since not all would have read The Trial? Dysprosia 23:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kafkaesque is widely understood and needs no more than the link Kafkaesque in explanation.  Paul Beardsell 03:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the way you want it, then I'd suggest a removal of the word "proportion", and say something like "a Kafkaesque witch-hunt" instead. Dysprosia 04:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Kafkaesque'' and Dysprosia's removal of that term twice from this piece

message: The following is a quote, 19 March 2004
Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks on Thought For the Day on Radio 4:
It’s actually fatherhood that makes humanity different from most primate species. Usually it’s the females who look after the young, while a few weeks after birth many males don’t even recognise their own children. Motherhood is biological and almost always strong. Fatherhood is cultural and almost always in need of support. Matt Stan 08:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporters

message: What I was looking for in this article, and was disappointed not to find, is something on the father's rights if the mother wishes to have an abortion. So much is said about a woman's right to "choose;" does the father get any say in such situations? Garrett Albright 12:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a contentious issue, but I'm not aware of anywhere where a father has any rights over an unborn child; not even here in Ireland where the only option available to women who wish to have an abortion is to travel to the UK. That said, an unmarried father by default (in Ireland) has only the right to be informed if another man wishes to adopt his children, so it'd be reaching a bit far to expect any rights to veto an abortion. -- Jim Regan 00:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

text: If one accepts that a woman should not have the right to terminate a child arbitrarily - in other words, if one accepts that she should not have the right to end a life just, say, because she finds it inconvenient to be pregnant or doesn't want the responsibility of parenthood - then one can start to enumerate what constitute valid reasons for a termination, and these will exclusively be medical reasons. If one introduces the father into the decision-making process, and says that there must be unanimity between the partners in deciding the outcome when the question of abortion arises, then there are still difficult questions of precedence. One could hold that only if both partners agree that there should be a termination then it can take place. From the anti-abortionists' perspective, this is like saying that the father must become party to the 'murder' of the unborn child in order for it to take place. Alternatively one could take the opposite stance and say that if either partner wants the abortion then it must occur, so a father could demand an abortion even though the mother didn't want it (and vice versa). I think both these alternatives create difficulties, the latter more than the former. For those who hold that abortion should not occur except for valid medical reasons, such questions do not arise: abortion is held simply to be wrong and any perpertators of it or collaborators in bringing it about are criminals. Because this is such a difficult area, there hasn't been any clamour amongst fathers' rights campaigners for any increase in fathers' rights when it comes to decisions about abortion. Opinion is generally divided between those who believe abortion is wrong (the anti-abortionists) and those who accept that a woman should have the exclusive right to decide what to do with her own body (and, by extension, with those who grow within it) without anyone one else, e.g. the father, having any overriding right to interfere in her decision. A commonsense argument against giving fathers the right to demand an abortion is that if he didn't want a child then he shouldn't have impregnated the mother, i.e. the pregnancy was the result of a voluntary action on his part and therefore he should have no right stop it having started it. It is less easy, I think, to provide good reasons why a father shouldn't demand that a woman does not abort his child, but if fathers were ever given such a right then there would be obvious problems of enforcement. Matt Stan 10:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The father's rights in regards to abortion

message: I think it would help to get at some of the underlying assumptions, often not stated in debates, to understrand the issues of 'rights' in a family law context. Here are my initial thoughts/questions:
*Does a mother have the right to choose her child's social father?
::If the answer is yes, then the fathers' rights angle goes away because it is established that there is an inequality right at the start. This, however, is effectively the status quo in that a mother will often assert this right, and then it is for the father to try to get that assertion overturned in a court of law. Is this the root of the issue of inequality in this context?
::If the answer is no, then who has precedence when it comes to being that social father? Some suggest that the natural father should invariably have first call - that the biological relationship is sacred and that it is of paramount interest to the child to have that relationship preserved.
It seems that political debates have missed this point which, if my assumptions are correct, goes some way to link the polarised positions of the UK political parties on this issue. Essentially there are those who, it seems, believe that "a woman's right to choose" should be extended in Single Parent Household situations, and those who wish to assert the "equality argument" and allow that choice also to be exercised by men.
Matt Stan 10:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Underlying the issue of rights

message: While much of this article is well-written and informative, the fact that it contains no criticism of certain anti-feminist subsets of the Fathers' Rights movement renders it biased. Many prominant figures and groups have attacked some Fathers' Rights activists, arguing that they simply want to roll back feminism and return to a more partriarchal way of doing things. Whether one agrees or disagrees with such critiques is not germane here -- but until these matters are treated, this article is biased by omission.Zantastik 08:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is information about criticism of such anti-feminist subsets then why not at least provide a link? In fact 'father's rights' as it has come to be known might better be classified as a sub-set of men's rights rather than vice versa. There may well be subsets of the men's rights movement that fall into the category identified by Zantastic. Matt Stan 16:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Zantastic raises a more interesting point, though, I think. It could be argued that men's rights movement is opposition to what ensues when the feminist notion of empowering women to make their own decisions includes the decision to exclude the father from their children's lives. So, yes the critic above is right that the article doesn't dwell on this erstwhile anti-feminist sentiment underpinning the fathers' rights movement. Perhaps it should. On the other hand, I never thought that feminism was about replacing patriarchy with matriarchy. So whatever should be getting opposed here is not feminism as it is usually portrayed, rather what one of the UK judiciary has described as a "group of obdurate women" mentioned in the context of literature obtained from Women's Aid which has inflamed family disputes over children. Matt Stan 16:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (2)

message: This article, while containing a good deal of useful information about the Fathers Rights movement, is extremely biased in support of it. This article has serious neutrality problems, and needs to be throughly re-written. I cannot do this myself, because I am not an expert on the movement. This article is nothing but a tract for the movement, and wikipedia does not tolerate such issue advocacy in lieu of encyclopaedic articles.Zantastik 06:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Bias towards the UK-based "Fathers Rights" movement 

message: This is just advertising space for the F4J and others. There is no mention of the many criticisms made about the anti-woman tone the organisation has often adopted, nor of the complications pointed out by neutral observers (do we slice the child in two?). 
NEW-->> Sorry, im not used to wikipedia, but i want to answer this . 
1- im not english 2- im a divorced father 3 - saying that a man that wants to see his son, is anti -woman, is nothing compared to a woman that is like a dictator/revenger , and dont allow his son to see his dad . Dont talk about neutral observers, cause neutral observers say that a son, have a mother, and a father ... Its easy, to see that . Regarding splice the child in two, i dont know what u mean, but i guess, that a dictator mother, when leaves the child in the school, in the grandmother, in the uncle, in the kindergarten, in the new boyfriends house, dont splice the child in two. Guess what ? Only need to splice the son, when the child goes to the fathers house ... 
( paulo quintela is my real name, ok ? From a fathers rights movement 26-4 não , from portugal , yeahhh , land of josé mourinho, and cristiano ronaldo, so dont joke with US !!! 
TO WIKIPEDIA PEOPLE .- sorry, if i made some techinical or english mistakes  <<--NEW 
The author is one of the main figures in the F4J and can't be expected (or asked) to be neutral and actually print the critiques. He reverts them every time someone tries and frankly I'd rather we just gave up and left the NPOV warning so people at least know what they're getting in to.
:It is better to correct biassed material, I think, than just to label is as such. If the anonymous writer above (62.252.128.25) knows any of the specific criticisms made about the anti-woman tone of the organisation, then they ought to be put into the article. Unfortunately the comment above is non-specific, so what can be done? It is an accusation of bias by omission - without making good the omission. Surely the same could be said about any article that missed anything out about anything. The fact that an author chooses to include some facts and exclude others may be deemed biassed , but not by the criteria that wikipedia uses, surely? Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ther rhetoric was on a Talk Page, not in the article itself. I have cited sources to indicate that the founder of F4J has been nominated for a Great Briton Award - not that he is a controversial anti-feminist. If there is a dispute, let's know what is disputed, please. Meanwhile, in the absence of any material disputation, my "wanton vandalism" continues. The more people who get involved, the better. The introducer of the unsubstantiated claim of NPOV is the vandal. He/she or it should go away and check his/her or its facts. All the stuff that I've added to the article has been backed up by references, or personal anecdotes from people I trust who have experienced the nightmare that gave rise to the father's rights movement in the first place. I suppose you'd put an NPOV sticker on a piece about concentration camps if one of the contributors happened to have been in one. So much for neutrallity! Matt Stan 00:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I invoke Godwin's Law. You hereby lose your argument. Sorry. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I've removed:
Critics of the fathers' rights movement claim that the men represented by these groups are primarily seeking to avoid financial responsibility or even punish their ex-wives for divorcing them, as often as they are seeking to preserve what interests they have in their children, if indeed they have any.  
no sources cited. Matt Stan 01:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part removed 

message: I surrender.  I am not going to waste my time in an editwar with an editor who believes that the term "ignorant" can be used in an NPOV manner.  Hopefully someone with more energy than I will come along and fix the problems with this page; doing so myself would interfere with my personal quest for domestic tranquillity.
At this point, I think Wikipedia would better served by deleting this page in its entirety.
—Kelly Martin 18:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia would not be better served by deleting this article.  And if Kelly thinks so there is a standard procedure to be followed.  If Kelly surrenders - if the argument as to why this is not NPOV is not going to be advanced - then the POV tag cannot remain.  I have removed it.  Paul Beardsell 02:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A long time ago I set up the peer review process in the hope that some might add comments. I wrote an introduction, but no one else contributed. Perhaps that doesn't bode well in that no one could be bothered to comment. Please be explicit as what you mean by "hobrribly POV", as otherswise it might appear that you are being just that, expressing bigotry on a subject you don't understand. Matt Stan 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrender 

message: I glanced over the article, having seen it listed for Deletion, and it looks fine. The article being on "fathers' rights" is going to be a bit POV to a few people inheritently just by existing. Spinboy 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Opinion

message: According to this article, 
::The view has traditionally been that there are a small minority of cases where a judge, who is assumed to be high-minded, must make decisions that will affect children's lives drastically. Rather than being criticised, these judges should be commended for performing this undesirable role. For users of the system, i.e. parents involved in litigation, there is frequently the perception that the system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions.
So, apparently there is "frequently the perception" that the system is a "monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions." No opposing views are presented, even though clearly a vast number of people would disagree here. The over-the-top language is almost laughable as well.
:Bob Geldof again: 
::And no need for the laborious and unjust proposals in the Lord Chancellor’s report which is a reductionist brief in a bid to make CAFCASS into the overarching State implementor of Family Law. Perhaps we should call it KAFKASS. This provides for an interminable round of increasing sanctions to a ecalcitrant parent who will not allow access to the child though so ordered. Under the proposed regime it would literally take months and possibly years before the other parent could see his child. At which point he would meet a virtual stranger, possibly poisoned with prejudice (also a problem in the status quo issue) against him.[Geldof gives references here]Why is this permitted?
:Quoted from The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name: A Sometimes Coherent Rant by BOB GELDOF. If he can get his views published by Cambridge Press, and is an advisor to the British Government on this issue, and no one has published an attack on this piece as far as I am aware, I argue it is probably acceptable in Wikipedia to echo parts of this copyrighted work. If the perception wasn't frequent, as I allege, then surely by quoting Geldof the perception is likely made more frequent. And in fact, as far as I am aware, there are not a "vast number of people" who disagree. Matt Stan 23:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "traditional view"

message: Please realise that the NPOV tag has been put in by someone who doesn't know enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing controversial has actually been said. The article eloquently explains the fathers' rights perspective for what it is, and this has led to nonspecific allegations that it is biased by a few people who are, by drawing attention to it, helping to get it more widely read. Many thanks! Keep it controversial - people enjoy that - though it would, as I've hinted before, be helpful, rather than saying it's "hopelessly POV" to say why. This request has been made so many times now, with no substantive result, that perhaps the people who keep making this unjustified claim should be blocked for vandalism. Matt Stan 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV or vandalism?

message: I have rewritten the first section, which I have broken up into sections and renamed Main Beliefs and Goals (of the movement). The text is clearer, less colloquial, more analytical and there is (finally!) no bias shown to either the fathers' rights activists or their critics. This style is more suited to an encyclopaedia -- before the rewrite, the style suited an informal speech given at a "what is the Fathers' Rights movement" meeting. The rest of the article needs to be rewritten in a similar vein; this is a pretty daunting task, so perhaps those who want to follow, not dodge, the instructions of the VfD committee should lend a hand, doing a section at a time. Zantastik 05:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of first section 

message: I've kept my distance from this article, mostly due to the fact that I myself am a father currently living the nightmare of lengthy Family Court proceedings to remain in contact with my son. This article has had a history of neutrality problems, which is not unexpected. Mothers and fathers are both parents. I've witnessed both sexes experiencing alienation from their child at the hands of bitter ex's. It's not a problem that is gender specific. Perhaps the title of the article lends itself to being biased towards a fathers movement? Maybe the title should be moved to Parents' rights or similar? (although for the past 5 years, I've been told I have no right whatsoever of seeing my child - every right belongs to my son). What do others think? Is the title a problem? Longhair 11:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the title the problem? 

message: If this were one's sole introduction to the topic of Fathers' Rights, one would believe the movement did not exist until the creation of Fathers 4 Justice. One would also believe that almost all activity were taking place in the UK, at the hands of F4J.
Of course, this is not the case. The Parents/Childrens/Fathers rights movement has been around for over thirty years. There are many hundreds of organizations, some well funded, some small and local.
The entire article need to be rewritten. Agwiii 22:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Perspetive 

message: As summarized by numerous other commentators above, this entire article is hopelessly POV. I have reinserted the NPOV tag, and made various other edits in an attempt to move the article closer to neutrality. It will probably have to be rewritten completely. Firebug 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and reverted the edits since this page had reached a consensus. NPOV tags aren't meant to stay on a page forever. --Spinboy 16:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No such consensus was reached. Rather, the article had been taken over by a small handful of F4J campaigners who inserted their own POVs throughout. This is not the first time the neutrality of this article has been called into question. Sections claiming (with no evidence or citations whatsoever) that no-fault divorce is a Leninist invention, and sections uncritically parroting propaganda ("There is also considerable fear of what are viewed as heterophobic and feminist state-funded bodies  are obstructing what many would consider to be humane arguments made by aggrieved fathers.") If you doubt me, I ask you to call in five long-time, well-regarded Wikipedians who have never seen this article before, and ask them whether it violates NPOV in the form that you reverted back to. I'm considering a complete rewrite of the article since it was written from a POV standpoint in the first place and cleanups are merely shoving the mess into the closet. Firebug 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just read this article, and am shocked.  It is badly written, and very POV.  I tend to agree, it needs to be completely overhauled.MollyBloom 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag Reinstated 

message: The following appeared at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Russian_Communist_attempt_to_abolish_the_family:
*By the way - I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, but can we get neutral parties to overview the content of the main Fathers' rights article? While the movement is newsworthy enough to deserve an article, the existing article is hopelessly POV, consisting largely of propaganda couched in weasel words. (Examples: "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." And "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers". Both of which I have removed, along with unsourced comments trying to tar no-fault divorce by comparison with Leninist atrocities.) I'd like to see this entire article rewritten from a NPOV. Firebug 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree, in which case is not the paragraph cited above that starts "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of ..." simply an instance of "describing people's beliefs", as you put it. So why delete it? (The fact that you know my stance should surely not detract from what I actually write. You need to look at the writing itself, and forget who might have written it. That is what wikipedia is about.) Matt Stan 20:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Deletionist

message: Many people fail to understand the fathers' rights movement as such, rather seeing it as the reaction of individuals who have had unfortunate judgments made against them in family courts, or who have found that, even when a court has established that it is in a child's interest to maintain a relationship with the father, this does not occur because the mother obstructs it. A UK family court judge declared in 2004 that material provided by Women's Aid had unnecessarily caused a mother to express fear about a father's involvement with the children. This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child. The idea that a father provides advantages to his offspring, which is supported by research, is discounted by what a judge has described as a "group of obdurate women" on the grounds that mothers should be able to choose to bring up their children alone if they want to. Such a view is not acceptable in a UK family court and therefore women who hold this belief have to adopt other means to achieve their aims.
Those who have been to court cases where Women's Aid helpers have also been in evidence would be unlikely to dispute the paragraph above. Matt Stan 21:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested in the level of sophistication of those who tend to delete anything that indicates that some people believe there might be a hidden agenda by those who oppose fathers' rights. From my observations here of edits to this article, an interesting body of evidence is growing (bearing in mind that wikipedia keeps all old edits). The only way to remove this evidence is to delete the whole article, an expedient that was tried and rejected wholeheartedly by wikipedians earlier this year. Please keep coming, you deletionists, you are providing prima facie evidence! Matt Stan 09:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts cut from the article 

message: This article has an insane number of external links.. in the interests of keeping Wikipedia from becoming an anything-goes web directory, we need to cut almost all of the links out of this article. It would be best to decide what to keep and delete everything else. This ain't dmoz. Rhobite 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It is apparently well past the Spam Event Horizon. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * I have removed all external links with a .com extension, as most of them seemed to have an agenda to sell something or provide legal services (go figure).  I also removed a link to Jail for Judges, which seemed to me to be somewhat non-related (and controversial).  If any of these links do belong here, I suppose they can be added again, but at least they will be visible in recent changes and can be scrutinized there.  I left links to .org and .gov sites, but some of these may also need a good scrubbing. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * I have culled some dead links and those that blatantly don't meet the WP:EL criteria because they require a login or go to a blog. Left the remaining links but these need review as some seem only marginally relevant. I've put a NoNewLinks template in the section to inform external linkers of the spam problem with this article Decr32 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: no merge.  Skeezix1000 12:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a mismatch; certainly not all of those choosing not to marry would be fathers, if anything the opposite correlation would be probable. --carlb 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed marriage strike is something of a growing issue from a relitive minority of so called "personal freedom" advocates as such the issue falls almost compleatly outside the fathers issue as it relates to protecting your money rather than children.  --Lord Matt 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Against: Misogyny and family law are distinct and merging Marriage strike into this article only makes that confusion worse. Abstention from marriage is also moderately common among advocates for polyamory and heterosexual supporters of gay rights, including many political feminists. If anything, perhaps an AfD for Marriage strike as non-notable. Rorybowman 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: This article could be improved by a sharper focus. Some of the material here relating to family law would probably better be place either in that article or in a sparate Family law and gender or similar article. -- Paul foord 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family law and gender 

message: Whilst PAS is contentious - this article needs to present an assessment - replacement text was total POV - illustrated by the external link to a hate page on Philip Gardner's suicide, the relevance of his suicide here is not explained. -- Paul foord 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PAS

message: Please, would those people involved in earlier discussions review the article and note POV issues to assist future editing (or edit it for NPOV themselves)? If no comment then will remove notice. -- Paul foord 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What work still needed for NPOV? 

message: I'm not really sure what the following two paragraphs are trying to say.  Could someone who knows the subject re-write them:
"Fathers' rights [campaigners? activists? organisations?] believe family court judges are seen generally as high-minded and impartial. Such judges would thus be faced with difficult decisions and should be commended for acting out this difficult role."
"Governments are often seen as reluctant to change child custody law. Fathers' rights campaigners argue that parents, not legal experts, but the family courts became involved when there are intractable differences between parents who cannot agree on what their children's "best interests" actually are."
Paulleake 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quickie: Family Law and the Family Court sub-section

message: There is plenty in this article that is very confusing and here are some examples: 
:"This enables parents satisfactorily to agree their own arrangements and a court will accept this."
The above sentence doesn't make any sense and appears to be in the wrong grammatical order. Also who says it is satisfactory? It seems to be missing the word "to" as well as I'm not sure what "to agree their own" means. It makes a bit more sense with "to agree to their own".
:"Unfortunately this does not always occur and frequently one or both of the parents appeals to a family court to have the matter resolved."
Because this sentence directly follows the previous example, I don't understand why this "does not always occur" if is it still "satisfactory"? Who finds it unfortunate? 
:"In continuing existing arrangements in care and income generation from the intact family unit, often these had been implicitly negotiated by the parents and strongly influenced by social mores, fathers' can be denied a significant ongoing role."
The grammar here is not good. For example "continuing" with "existing" sounds redundant, even if it is not meant to be. I would find it easier to understand if said, "current continuing..." instead. "Fathers' " is possessive and is inappropriate, so it should be "fathers." Where does the word "from" come into play? None of those comes "from" the intact family unit, but perhaps is "within" the intact family unit, unless I am misunderstanding what is meant here and that is a distinct possibility because I'm having trouble even understanding what the subject is of this sentence. What kind of care are you talking about? Child care as in day care or caring for the child as in love and attention or diaper changing?  
Maybe I'm alone in my thoughts here, but I feel that a grammar overhaul is most definitely needed. I'm not trying to nitpick, but to suggest ways to make it more readable. MagnoliaSouth 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A grammar and style overview is needed.  In short, it is bad writing. The article is very POV, also. MollyBloom 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Edits

message: * I've edited the "Marriage Breakdon" section which claims the US has a divorce rate of 50%. From Wikipedia's Divorce article:
In the United States, in 2003 there were 7.5 new marriages per 1000 people and 3.8 divorces per 1000, a ratio which has existed for many individual years since the 1960s. As many statisticians have pointed out, virtually none of the marriages taking place in a given year are the same couples divorcing that year, so there is in fact no predictive relationship between the two annual totals. Nonetheless the claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" became widely accepted in the US in the 1970s, on the basis of this statistic, and has remained conventional wisdom. Pollster Lewis Harris in his 1987 book "Inside America" wrote that "the idea that half of American marriages are doomed is one of the most specious pieces of statistical nonsense ever perpetuated in modern times."
It seems a little wordy now, but I couldn't figure out how to make it flow more smoothly. I would like to have mentioned if the divorce rate has been rising, but could not find any reliable sources. -DejahThoris 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divorce Rate

message: This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law  - -  Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal needed 

message: Many domestic violence studies that conclude men and women are equally violent and Father's Rights advocates reject inferences that instill gender politics by portrayal of women as victems and men as perpetrators.
What are the "many" studies and where do they say they reject such "inferences"?
Failure of the courts to prosecute false domestic violence allegations in divorce and custody disputes tends to advocate the tactic of making false domestic violence accusations.
Is there a citation from a study by fathers rights activists, or anybody, about this?
"Thomas Kasper writes in the Illinois Bar Journal, domestic violence measures funded by VAWA readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” 
Is there some sort of link to this, or citation or anything?
Father's Rights and men's rights activists seek to better protect real victems of domestic violence by reducing false accusations
Link/citation?
"and exposing the radical feminist or feminazi tactics to use this topic to advance discrimination and villification of men."
POV. If a fathers rights activist thinks this then it should be noted in a second-hand context with a citation from a father's right activist. However it should not be written as if Wiki accepts there are "femininazis" and that they have tactics. Also, it needs citation. Those links to notes go nowhere.
The topic of Domestic Violence is a key element of Father's Rights [this article]. The feminist, gynocentric, misandrous manipulation of domestic violence propaganda to portray men as perpetrators and women as victems is a central issue that should not be brushed aside to advance feminist POV, especiall within an article on Father's rights. 
::This isn't a place to get on a soap box nor to accuse editors of advancing an agenda. People will edit things whether they are feminists, mascuilists, communists, fascists, from Saturn, or whatever. With Wiki policy, you cannot just use an encyclopedia to air your opinion with nothing to substantiate it. When you discuss domestic violence and whatnot, there has to be something said by Father's Rights Activists that sufficiently represents them (or contrary studies/whatever that will represent opposing view pioints within the movement) in order to be approrpiate for the article, or if you are going to use epithets and insults then a quote from a noteable person in the movement who used them as atrributing it to WIKI is POV and that goes against policy. Not just somebody who comes on here, makes accusations and throws around labels and name-calling for things that they don't back-up.
I have removed the damaged links, I will research later and add in better links - or others may do this. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006
::For the time-being, I'm going to fix some spelling errors and whatever name-calling. Some researching Father's Rights who comes on here will not get an appropriate encyclopediac setting with rant-style columns.
ps: you can go to the linked 'domestic violence' article for some of the 'studies' that show men v women are equally violent. [that article is so biased, with feminist pov, it may be hard to find]. Dozens of articles, links, studies, etc under the topics domestic violence and VAWA address the perjoritive nature of the VAWA, which is just as discriminatory on it's face as a 'violence against white's act' would be to blacks. these sites/articles, etc typically include statement that domestic violence is not supported, and 'real' domestic violence should be delt with sternly, but the greater problem is lack of enforcement on perjury or false accusations. 
::Whatever. It just has to back up what is being said in the article.
this is a 'father's right's' article, but it seems to be controled and edited by feminist spin miesters, just look at the pages of 'criticisms' included here in 'father's rights' and the lack of balanced POV, and key issues such as domestic violence are only presented in the feminist, mysogonist, or gynocentric view. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006
--loneranger4justice 18 september 2006
::No article on Wikipedia is exempt from a criticism section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Father's Rights soap-box or think-tank. The same goes for feminism, masculism, humanism, etc.NeoApsara
::: Feminism doesn't have a criticism section. Although I agree with the idea that criticism sections are needed. Zslevi 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminism does have a criticism section. Its called Contemporary criticism of feminism.NeoApsara 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Domestic violence" problems 

message: Would anyone be interested in doing an article to accompany this which describes mother's rights? It seems to be lacking to only cover it under the name of father, even though it does speak extensively on the rights of mothers by default. Possibly much of the information here could be used to create that. I just finished making a slew of articles and I'd rather someone more familiar with the issue create it.
I notice Mothers' rights redirects here. I don't feel this is very neutral. If the article is going to be used to discuss both, parents' rights (need to create and redirect parent's rights to it) are a better place for the topics and terms to congregate. Parent's movement is mentioned in this article as something that includes this as well as men's rights. When creating the parent's rights article I suppose this could be mentioned along with mother's rights, and their respective relations to men's rights and women's rights.Tyciol 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mother's rights]]

message: "Trish Wilson claimed fathers' rights activists "showed their true colors" by having "supported" and "excused" what Mack is alleged to have done."
I don't like this double indirection in references. (Trish Wilson said, that others said ...; not to mention weasel words...)
(By the way: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060614/NEWS10/606140341/1002 is a broken link ) 
Zslevi 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What weasle words? It is made clear the opinion come from the critic and not laid out definitively as a fact from Wikipedia. As for the missing citation, it seems to have only recently deleted; it may either be in history or somewhere in the mess of links at the bottom of the page. I'm not even sure what that broken link ever was.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the individual Father's Rights Activist, for which Wiki cannot act as a soapbox. What it can have is a something verifiable and information based on a consensus, not the opinion of any editor. As for the criticism, it is a criticism - not a "truth" as Wiki itself is neutral. It, like the rest of the article, depends on citations, verifiability, and its NPOV - in this case being written as the opinion of the critic, not of Wiki.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, my problem with Trish Wilson's criticism, that she simply states (or suggests) that father's movement activists are simply criminals. I doubt that it reaches the wikipedia quality standard.Zslevi 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I somehow didn't noticed the following part: "who included the story about Darren Mack in a letter to a legislator". So that the JFK quotation obviously referenced to Mack Darren's case. So it was Randy Dickinson, who have excused Mack. I retract my previous post about the "gossip party".  --Zslevi 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with your points Michael H 34.  I dropped Trish Wilson a line on her talk page becuase unfortunately, her comments are referenced from a non-notable source, I've asked if she can provide a notable source for the material - if she, or nobody else can, that paragraph will have to be changed.  Critcism must be specific and notable, just as article content should be.  However Michael H 34, in relation to the above post, replacing SOME feminists with MOST or A FACTION (or such terms) is not enough.  Specific critiques of the subject of an article are the only ones that should be mentioned in articles otherwise they introduce elements of POV.  I will try to find such specifics myself but if anyone else has them please post them.--Cailil 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  She cited from Timesunion. Isn't it a notable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The piece about Darren Mack is okay - that's cited from Timesunion (ref no. 37).  The quotes from her are sourced from a blog (ref no. 36)  - she probably has had these published in a paper but those sources must be referenced rather than a blog (because blogs are not WP:RS).  Also the comments Trish Wilson, writer and freelance journalist, holds that while fathers' rights activists claim they are "only concerned with helping dads see their children", they actually "lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting), seek to reduce protections for battered women" and that they "want laws that would lower their child support obligations". are uncited - they need to be referenced from a WP:V or WP:RS source, otherwise it looks like POV.  I've found these comments in an article on alternet but once again this doesn't fulfill WP:RS.--Cailil 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a source been found for this sentence?  Michael H 34 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Since there has been recently some controversy about the editing of this page, can I suggest that all editors are careful to cite sources for any additions that they make to the article?  For those who need it, information about citing sources can be found here WP:CITE. --Slp1 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Citations 

message: I would like to expand the following bullet:
*The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world. 
I would like to see it read as follows:
*The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage and the introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world.
How can I make it so?
Michael H 34 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be a bit wary of using the Catholic News Agency as a WP:RS source, on the grounds that it has a partisan point of view - if you there's another source it would be better.--Cailil 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested edit to the beginning of the Article 

message: I just noticed that the paragraph about interim contact orders in the section about "Child Custody/Residence and Parenting Time" has been changed. The problem is that the changes are not supported by any citations. Here is the changed statement:
"Judges are empowered to direct parents to share parenting time, and even before custody issues are resolved, judges are empowered, taking into account the best interests of the children, to order an interim parenting plan, which can prevent the father from being excluded from the children's lives, while the parents develop their own parenting plan."
I would like to see the original statements reposted, with the following citations (keep reading):
Interim contact orders are common in the U. K and in Australia. They have to do with all kinds of contact orders, not only joint custody (a. k. a. "shared parenting") orders. Sometimes parenting plans are included with these contact orders, but not all the time. Focusing only on joint custody/shared parenting orders limits the nature of interim contact orders. I would like to see the statement about these orders changed back to the original, which was this:
"Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives."
Here are three sources to back up that statement above. One is from the U. K., and two are from Australia. Wiki editors, please let me know if these sources are okay to use. Two of them are rather lengthy papers. Just look for "interim contact orders" in them to see the pertinent information you need.
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb0012059e946e8/fla.pdf
http://www.custodyissues.co.uk/court_welfare_officers.html
http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~Contact+Services+Report0605.doc/$file/Contact+Services+Report0605.doc [note: this is a Word document]
I would like to add the following sentence to the statement, since two of the three sources mentioned contact and domestic violence: 
"While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged."
I would also like to see the following statement reinstated, since it is accurate and supported with a footnote:
"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts." I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law. Here's the URL:
http://www.divorcesource.com/CT/ARTICLES/prince1.html
If the sources are okay, I would like to change the paragraph as it is now written to read as follows, including the four sources listed above:
"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts. Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives. While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged." 
Trish Wilson 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim Contact Orders 

message: I would like to add the following to the end of the Child custody/residence and parenting time section. It clarifies when joint custody/shared parenting works, and when it doesn't. I have included sources.
Researcher Paul Amato had found that when parents have an amicable relations, children are likely to benefit from joint custody. However, when children are exposed to conflict, joint custody can be harmful.  Most parents with joint custody arrangements had only one child. They were relatively wealthy and educated. They also were relatively friendly towards each other. These parents were friendly and cooperative before and after the divorce, showing it was the predivorce characteristics of the parents that reflected the postdivorce relationship, not the type of custody arrangement itself. Ordering joint custody between parents who could not cooperate with each other has been shown to be detrimental. Joint custody parents "had reported the lowest satisfaction with the legal agreement one year after the child custody order." Paul Amato had also noted the lack of satisfaction when courts order joint custody when it is not the first choice of both parents. He wrote that "in a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."
The sources are as follows:
Amato: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/amato(1993).html
Other joint custody info: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/SIPP/pt2.htm
Trish Wilson 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared Parenting 

message: I am concerned that this article is getting away from the topic at hand (Fathers' rights) and getting into long paragraphs about particular issues such as Domestic Violence, Child custody/residence and parenting time etc.  I believe that most of this argument/research should be placed in the articles dealing this those specific issues rather than in this article.  For this article the focus should be on (sourced) opinions about what fathers' rights activists say about specific issues, there also needs to be a critique/criticism for each short section (if appropriate) and at the end. Of course there would be links the specific articles where the issues are laid out in more detail.  Any thoughts.--Slp1 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall look at  this article 

message: The bit on million dads march in this article contradicts the million dads march article, which claims million dads march network was founded in 2002 by Thomas Lessman. From the history of both articles it seems there are competing claims for credit for "founding" the MDM. 
Decr32 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: How's this for the start of an outline? It's just a start. I hope it makes sense. I couldn't add numbers and letters like a normal outline because Wiki kept boxing everything. So, I used bullets. Everyone feel free to add or delete from it. I think it covers the major points.
1. Intro - Fathers Rights
:Description of movement
:Criticism
2. Main Issues
:Family law and the family court
::Adversarial court system
::language
++::bias against fathers
::criticism
:Child Custody - Shared Parenting
::criticism
:Child Support
::criticism
:Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
::criticism
:Parental Alienation Syndrome
::criticism
3. In the UK
:Fathers 4 Justice
:Families Need Fathers
:criticism
4. In Australia
:Men's Rights Agency
:The Blackshirts
:criticism
5. In the USA
:Fathers and Families
:Children's Rights Council
:American Coalition For Fathers And Children
:Alliance For Noncustodial Parents Rights
:criticism
6. Famous Supporters
7. Conclusion, supportive and critical
Trish Wilson 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, notable would be much better! Slp1 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Notable is better. Though father's rights activists aren't really notable outside their own group. Would this section contribute anything of encyclopedic value to the article?  Decr32 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Decr32 makes some good points. It will probably not be necessary to have a separate section entitled "Notable Supporters", since the UK, Australian, and USA sections would already discuss the better-known groups and activists. Having a "Notable Supporters" section might be redundant in light of the previous sections. Trish Wilson 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: Thank you for adding this new section, Michael. It makes it much clearer.
Can I suggest that we all add comments at the end of the sections, in time order, rather in the middle, as otherwise important posts might get lost?  I have moved one  of yours to the end, Michael, for this reason.  
Another point of wikithequette is that it is not considered a good idea to edit comments (even your own comments) after they have been posted.  See  the talkpage guidelines for details of why, etc!!  I figure it is okay to write a few clarifying changes within minutes of a first post, but additions and deletions otherwise should be done as a separate post, I believe. --Slp1 12:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Notes

message: Here's a start for the domestic violence section. I've amended it to call it Domestic Violence/Child Abuse, since child abuse sometimes comes up in divorce and custody cases. I think what I've written covers the main points. Since Parental Alienation Syndrome already has a page on Wikipedia, I've included some general information about it in this section. Any additional information about Parental Alienation Syndrome should probably be written on that page.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/CHILD ABUSE
THE FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW
The fathers rights movement does not agree with the prevailing wisdom that women are the most common victims of domestic violence. They say that some research (especially research by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz []) has found that women are as abusive as men. Fathers rights advocates say that men who say they are abused are not taken seriously and that they are seen as weak. [] The fathers rights movement says that shelters for battered women discriminate against men. It wants to see more services for battered men, and therefore it has sued women's shelters for discrimination. [] Fathers rights activists also believe that most domestic violence and child abuse allegations made by women are false. They say that child custody disputes drive most fabrications of domestic violence and child abuse. []  The fathers rights movement says that the most common false allegations made are allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse, and that wives are more likely to make these false allegations than husbands, especially in the context of a custody dispute. [] In line with their beliefs that mothers frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, father's rights activists have supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in court to prevent mothers from falsely accusing fathers. PAS that says that mothers frequently try to alienate their children from the fathers during divorce and custody cases. [].Fathers rights activists say that mothers who suffer from PAS want to eliminate the father from the children's lives. PAS mothers are described as making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual and/or physical or emotional abuse of the child. These mothers may also accuse the father of suffering from a mental illness, alcoholism/drug abuse, or of being gay. []
CRITIC'S VIEW
Critics say that fathers' rights activists have tried to roll back protections for battered women by claiming that most allegations of abuse are false and that men and women are equally abusive. []While there are male victims of domestic violence, most victims of domestic violence are women. [] Men who are victims of domestic violence tend to be abused by their male partners in gay relationships. [] While some fathers' rights activists have sued women's shelters, alleging that they discriminate against men, they have lost their cases due to the lack of evidence that they had suffered discrimination and that they lacked standing. [] Researcher Richard Gelles had written that when looking at injuries, it is false to imply that there are the same number of battered men as battered women.[]  Gelles had written that it is a "significant distortion of well-grounded research data" for fathers' rights activists to say that there are significant numbers of battered men and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. []Critics say that women do not frequently make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and that false allegations of both are rare. [] [] Critics say that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse made by women are often assumed to be false because they are made in a contentious legal environment. However, such beliefs are incorrect. [] Bona fide false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are rare. [] [] Most bona fide false allegations of child abuse are made by men. [] Parental Alienation Syndrome is not considered a valid medical syndrome by the American Psychological Association. [] [] PAS has never been subjected to testing, research, or study. It is also biased against women. [] Critics say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is being used by abusive and controlling fathers as a weapon against mothers. The use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court has lead to fit and good mothers losing custody of their children to their abusive and controlling ex-partners. []
Trish Wilson 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Section 

message: Slp1, I just saw the updates you made (I assume it was you) on the main article page. I like what you did very much. I don't have anything to add at the moment. I saw your two new templates at the top, so I won't add anything until I run it past you here first.
Thanks so much for doing all that work, and for helping out here in the discussion page. I know fathers' rights is a very contentious topic. I've enjoyed working with you and everyone else here so far. 
Trish Wilson 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Article Page