Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 2

message: Is the 70% statistic being used to support criticism of shared parenting?
Since the 70% statistic is included in the section on shared parenting, I think that it is not incorrect to mention that the 70% statistic is being used as criticism of shared parenting in the section on Bias against fathers.
Michael H 34 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that repetition is not desirable. --Slp1 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against fathers 

message: "Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that it is extremely rare for fathers to abuse their children and that when children are abused, it almost always occurs after the father has been separated from their children."
http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/familyviolence.pdf?docID=641 Page 47 "Despite irresponsible statements.... Page 48 Maggie Gallagher sums....
"Members of the fathers' rights movement state the primary cause for increasing allegations of domestic violence and child abuse is the result of the inflamatory "win or lose" nature of child custody hearings, which they contend has encouraged false allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse."  Page 43 "Child abuse has similarly....  Page 5 "Americans have been inundated...."  Page 25 "We believe that...."  
Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that domestic violence and child abuse should be prosecuted based on due process of law and that government officials and social workers should not have the power to violate constitutional rights.  Page 58 "Our first recommendation...."
Members of the fathers' rights movement claim that fathers are considered guilty and are not presumed to be innocent, just because they are men. Page 44 "This lack of due process...." Page 60 In box "We recommend...."  Page 51 "As will be seen...."
I'll find more or reword sentences, if mecessary.
Michael H 34 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic Violence - Page Numbers for citations 

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

message: They draw on anecdote and "horror stories" to support their claims and use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional response.
This sentence needs to be attributed.  (The citation provided is not working.) Michael H 34 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Belief is not verifiable because it is a private thing inside someone's head. 'Claim' or 'say' is verifiable. 
It is debatable whether FR's actually "believe" all the things they say. Political lobbying frequently involves saying things which advance the activist's argument or appeal to the audience, not necessarily because the activist actually believes it.
Decr32 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references to "FR believe" in introduction 

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

message: Here's more information on this statistic:
http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php
Michael H 34 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  70% statistic 

message: "On May 22, 2006, Australia passed the "Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006" making both parents responsible for decisions about their child through the concept of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, but did not order that the child must spend equal amounts of time with each parent.[84]"
This is in agreement with the linked document.
  
However, in the absence of parental agreement, the law requires judges to order 50/50 shared custody unless it is not practical and not in the best interest of the children.  This was clearly written in the law (which was previously linked); a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting was created.  This is not communicated in the article.
"Fathers' rights group...step in right direction...disppointment"
The "disppointment" of a fathers' rights group is not linked to the final law, but rather to what the Senate had passed prior to the enactment of the final law.  They may (but may not) be one in the same.  The disappointment expressed by the fathers' rights group is based on the strong belief in the bias of family court judges.  I wonder if judges are required to officially document why they did not order 50/50 shared custody.
I ask that that the quoted sentences above be considered for change.
Michael H 34 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia - New Law 

message: I resubmitted a few sentences to the Child Support section that had been deleted. I have no idea why they were deleted. They were relevant, cited statements that should have remained in that section.
I agree that the article was getting way too long. It's still too long. Hopefully, that will be remedied in the future.
Trish Wilson 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Support 

message: There is much that is not included in the article.
In the U.S., bloggers have discussed
* their anecdotal experiences and views
* the importance of fathers to children
* the reasons why women initiate "the vast majority" of divorce and separation, especially when children are involved
* the negative portrayal of fathers and men in advertising
* the differences in the words used to describe men and women who commit crimes
* the recent initiative by child support enforcement agencies in putting information about "dead beat dads" on pizza boxes
I appreciate that not everything can be included in the article.
However, the section on family law is incomplete.
Michael H 34 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  family law 

message: Is this another topic worthy of including in this article?  Michael H 34 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political influences on family court judges 

message: More on Massachusetts
http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-10.htm
Michael H 34 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: On of the suggestions for changing low fertility: "exploring more progressive social values, like creating a shared-parenting norm"
Alternate suggestion: ‘We have to plan a major power cut or ban television, it’s the only hope we’ve got.’
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2000-009.pdf
Michael H 34 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared Parenting and birth rate declines 

message: I made an edit to this section.  Please feel free to edit or remove!
Michael H 34 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenting Time and Parental Alienation Syndrome 

message: This article concerned cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse accusations.
"The Comhairle remains committed to providing the best possible child protection services for children in the Western Isles."
"Plain English translation:'Watch out! Your family is next!'"
Criticism of "child kidnapping" is not reserved for Massachusetts (ironically, the witch trials occurred in Salem, Massachusetts - 1690's I believe).
"Do you know that  some of the children kidnapped in The Orkneys, whose parents were proven innocent, have not been returned, as they were legally adopted by their foster-parents, and, due to the long (five years) time of unjust separation, they were adjudged to be so bonded to their new "parents" it was held to be "No longer in the best interests of the child" to be returned to their real families. If you are a member of the media, please, ask your editor if you can get out of the office and investigate this travesty of justice."
http://fathersforlife.org/cps/comhairle.htm
Michael H 34 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Social workers and family court judges 

message: Recovered Memory Therapy - A Father’s Story; interview by Robert Mann
http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory
Michael H 34 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the government encouragement of false accusations of sexual abuse 

message: Men’s Hour Radio Programme has International Impact
The following interview by Bob Mann on "The Men’s Hour", was broadcast on Access Radio Monday 13th October. Following the show, Mark posted this transcript on the internet to a group of New Zealanders who regularly discuss men’s issues.
One of them was so impressed that he posted it on "witchut" - a long-running international newsgroup that discusses sexual abuse hysteria. From there it was picked up by a Canadian researcher who sends a digest version of the most interesting articles on witchut to researchers around the world, so by Wednesday morning it was back in New Zealand waiting in Felicity’s e-mail.
The story was also sent to the editor of the Canadian False Memory Society journal, who we hear intends to publish it. It’s good to know our efforts to get the word out about this tragic problem are succeeding. 
http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory
Michael H 34 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology and its role - anecdote about global spread of information; "Sexual abuse hysteria" 

message: These charlatans, these cheats, these defrauders, who have always falsely claimed to be able to read people's minds, simply created another piece of fiction. Another fantasy.
Why?
Power, money, status, court appearance fees, clients, workshops, touchy-feelie groups, salacious gossip, fantasy role playing games, fun, victimhood, friends, media appearances ....
And it put therapists back into the limelight. 
http://www.angryharry.com/esShamefulTherapists.htm
Michael H 34 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of therapists and link to vested interest 

message: Note: Members of the fathers' rights movement have expressed concern that legal recognition for social parents may allow social parents to obtain rights at the expense of biological parents.
http://www.gabnet.com/ep/ie/ldcr90815.htm
Michael H 34 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal recognition of social parents 

message: There are real problems with this section as it has been revamped in the last few days.  The statistics that women are more violent toward men in domestic partnerships is an extreme minority view.  I'm all for breaking with conventional wisdom, but to claim that women are responsible for the majority of domestic violence instances is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. --Justine4all 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had a close look at this section, but I generally agree that the phraseology is point of view, even if the specific arguments are real (and do have some research basis... I forget the name of the researcher, but he subsequently disowned the way his research was being used by the men's movement).  Looking back in the history I see what has happened, as two sections have been split and stuff added making it less NPOV.  I am currently super busy in my real life, but I have done a bit of research behind the scenes and will try to add some bits and pieces in the next few days.  My current focus is the section of women, which is rather weak and has not much to do with the FRM anyway.  I have some stuff collected to replace it.  BTW, Justine, I think you are doing the right thing by proposing changes and concerns here.  It gives a chance to build consensus. --Slp1 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have failed to follow my own advice and have done a bunch of edits well beyond the Domestic Violence section.  Hopefully the edit summaries are fairly self-explanatory though.--Slp1 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic Violence

message: Just wanted to post a couple of external links and noticed the notice not to. It looks like there are a couple of external links that may belong in the reference section. Another section might be useful for publications, such as Mens News Daily and a few others that support fathers rights very consistently. I would also like to suggest completed research that shows where child support amounts should actually be; can't post the geocities address, but search for "Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory" Rogerfgay 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section needs a massive pruning. Thanks for your pointers.--Slp1 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

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

message: Has the following been linked to the fathers' rights movement?  Should it be removed?
and that it has been rejected by some members of the legal community,  Critics claim that Parental Alienation Syndrome can be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.
Michael H 34 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parental Alienation Syndrome 

message: "When Woman is Boss"
"Colliers, January 30, 1926"
"The life of the bee will be the life of our race, says Nikola Tesla, world-famed scientist."
"A NEW sex order is coming--with the female as superior.  You will communicate instantly by simple vest-pocket equipment...."
"The Queen is the Center of Life"
"BUT the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose.  Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress."
"The acquisition of new fields of endeavor by women, their gradual usurpation of leadership, will dull and finally dissipate feminine sensibilities, will choke the maternal instinct, so that marriage and motherhood may become abhorrent and human civilization draw closer and closer to the perfect civilization of the bee."
"Imagination falters at the prospect of human analogy to this mysterious and superbly dedicated civilization of the bee; but when we consider how the human instinct for race perpetuation dominates life in its normal and exaggerated and perverse manifestations, there is ironic justice in the possibility that this instinct, with the continuing intellectual advance of women, may be finally expressed after the manner of the bee, though it will take centuries to break down the habits and customs of peoples that bar the way to such a simiply [sic] and scientifically ordered civilization...."
"We have seen a beginning of this in the United States.  In Wisconsin the sterilization of confirmed criminals and pre-marriage examination of males is required by law, while the doctrine of eugenics is now boldly preached where a few decades ago its advocacy was a statutory offense."
Michael H 34 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Early Buzz on the Fathers' Rights Movement ! 

message: This comment refers most concretely to a major transformation of family policy in the US; but I am quite convinced that the quality of family policy in other countries that adapted the new US model was also directly effected. I mention the legal transformation of marriage above (Background and history). In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993), a federal appellate court declared that family policy in the US is catagorized as "social policy." In general discussion, and some other countries, this may seem like a basic and perhaps uninteresting observation. Under US law however, it was a critical transformation. "Social policy" (also economic policy) is an area of law based entirely on arbitrary policy choice. Examples include how much people on public support are entitled to receive and the level of taxes one is required to pay. Regardless of whether you think your own country's policies are completely arbitrary, there is no constitutionally defined right for an individual to challenge these decisions - other than through voting for someone you agree with. This was a fundamental change from its former status: family being seen as basic to human existence and sacred private ground. Prior to the ruling, courts agreed that family rights are among the most basic, and that parental rights are always more important than a state's desire to intrude. Had it not been for this reclassification of family law, courts would have been forced by constitutional rulings toward even handed treatment of parents. Because of the reclassification, courts were pushed rapidly and dramtically away from that principle. Rogerfgay 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In 2004, the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court declared that marriage was no longer an institution in that state." I just read this in a comment at Amazon.com on Stephen Baskerville's new book. I have no citation for it, but believe it's true. By 2004, it was already an accurate statement; not a new idea being introduced by the Michigan court. The phrasing - no longer an "institution" is one I am familiar with. It means that it is no longer on the constitutionally protected ground that it once was, as I explained above. Rogerfgay 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Transformation 

message: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/14/phases-of-the-fathers%e2%80%99-rights-movement/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great example of why blogs and websites are frowned upon as sources.  People can write their own sources! A new one on me.--Slp1 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see it as a great example of ...  etc. The WP article needs to get properly focused and have a sense of background and history. Others who are knowledgable about the FR movement may want to tweak what's said in the suggested source article (which in the first lines characterizes itself, quite objectively, as an "initial draft outline." But it should be considered at least good study material for people who are interested in working on the WP article. The author finished a first pilot study on an FR related issue in 1990, first testified before congress on the issue in 1992, first conference presentation on an FR related issue in 1992, and has personally observed the growth and development of the FR movement since around the time of its birth. The source is extremely credible. Rogerfgay 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  post-hoc correction to clarify what has been discussed above.  Blogs and websites are not acceptable as sources per WP:SPS, except as sources about themselves, and subject to restrictions per WP:SELFPUB--Slp1 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phases of the fathers' rights movement 

message: Michael, please read carefully the following from the Guardian article (whose citation you deleted in your revert) "Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims.".  It exactly makes the claim that you are denying in your reverts, as does the book itself on several occasions.   Please restore it.  I will not engage in a revert war over this. --Slp1 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in question doesn't say that the movement is all about men.  It says that the issues the FRM focuses quite narrowly on issues of interest to divorcing/divorced men, and the citations you provide just bolster the S and C's case as they are about custody issues, access etc. Incidentally the second case isn't about a refugee at all, and isn't the kind of family reunification I am talking about.  See  and  for more details.  I would be very pleasantly surprised to know that fathers' rights groups were working in this area of refugee rights, but I haven't seen any sign of it to date.  In any case, as you know the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (see WP:V.  To my mind, S and C are one of the most reliable sources we have, and the sentence about "narrow focus" is certainly verifiable.Slp1 16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My quote from above: "isn't the kind of family reunification I am talking about". Yes, the Cuban father issue is about a kind of "family reunification".  Another kind is reuniting families who are separated for long periods by government immigration and refugee policies. This second is the kind of reunification that I (and Sheldon and Collier) are talking about, and which the FRM doesn't work on at all, apparently.Slp1 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be the result of limited budgets.  I noticed that a statement by Richard Collier was referenced in a citation by Miranda Kaye.  I did not understand the quoted statement, and so I wasn't able to form a tentative opinion concerning his point of view.  I misremembered the other author's name; Sally Sheldon is the coauthor, not Susan Boyd.  Michael H 34 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Limited budgets... well, that's one way of looking at it, though I don't think posting on FR websites/blogs about these issues would be that costly.  I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that members of the FRM are "narrowly focussed"  on custody/divorce/etc etc which affect them personally, and are not interested (and possibly actually ideologically opposed to) to gay men's parenting, and immigration/refugees.  After all there is a strong element of conservatism (political, social and religious) which seems to underly at least some parts of the movement.--Slp1 14:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: "Critics of the fathers' rights group state that its members "cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems...."
From the link:
In recent years, these different perceptions have been given
voice through the emergence of a number of grass-roots
fathers’ or mothers’ pressure groups that have, to borrow
Coltrane and Hickman’s (1992: 400) phrase, sought to cast
“personal troubles as pressing social problems”. Based on
USA experience, Coltrane and Hickman suggest that fathers’
groups typically portray “men as victims of vindictive wives
and sexist courts” (p. 407), while mothers’ groups commonly
portray “women and children as victims of abusive
husbands and biased courts” (p. 408). Both groups, suggest
Coltrane and Hickman, draw on “horror stories” to support
their claims: mothers’ groups tell of disinterested “deadbeat
dads” dodging child support liabilities, while fathers’ groups
tell stories of responsible (but “dead broke”) fathers being
denied contact with children by “extortionist wives” (p.
410-411). Some pressure groups in Australia make similar
claims – as evidenced in a number of submissions to the
recent parliamentary inquiry.
I may be wrong, but based on the citation I suggest that it is OR to state that Coltrane and Hickman are critics of the fathers' rights movement.  Michael H 34 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not original research but it might be a type of weasel wording to describe them as critics of father's rights.  A better wording would be "Sociologists Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman state that members of fathers' rights groups "cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems...."--Cailil  talk 13:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with your "such as" comments and will boldly change it. Also reword a few other things to preserve the flow.--Slp1 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edited sentence is acceptable to me.  Michael H 34 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge to Sentence in Movement's Activities 

message: I see no evidence that Chalmers was a member of the fathers' rights movement.
St. Louis Man Kills 4, Self Over Child Support Dispute
According to the article 'If it was a mistake, it cost the lives of my family' (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4/22/06):   Michael H 34 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on violence 

message: I am sure that editors will have a problem with outside sources if they are overly limiting on their ideas about what qualifies as an "outside" source. From its beginning (which I put at around 1990) fathers have been plagued by a well coordinated and highly effective anti-father propaganda campaign. Every person who critisized government policy aimed against fathers has been labled as a fathers' rights activist - which while literally accurate should not be used to berate the credibility of a source. The point of the campaign was to fire up emotions against fathers and provide the appearence of a credibility problem for anyone who critisized. For quite some time, the only people providing any reasonable perspective on fathers rights were those willing to fight a battle for fathers' rights - because any suggestion in favor of fathers would be met with a fight. Going too far from the FRM and its spokesman will typically drop off a cliff as far as credibility is concerned. Anti-father positions, even those that attempt to explain anti-father policy in a nice, neutral sounding way, are not objective. Rogerfgay 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Sources Problem 

message: If editors here have special expertise in subjects related to fathers' rights, I think you might want to know that I've challenged the neutrality of the Wikipedia article on Child_support. My reason is explained on the topic's talk page, where I have also posted and explained reason for a move template. Rogerfgay 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Support 

message: Notes: 
"They claim that a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is supported by a majority of citizens,..."
The following phrase was removed per ruling of Reliable Sources board:
:and that their proposals to pass such laws have been defeated by their opponents' portrayals of fathers as a threat to their children's well-being.
Here's a second citation:
NOW at 40: Group’s Opposition to Shared Parenting
Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
"It has issued numerous warnings, including one that says fathers' groups seeking joint custody laws are “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” In their statements the words “husband” and “father” are generally preceded by the word “abusive.” "
"Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states this year, including New York and Michigan. "
"This article appeared in the New York Daily News (7/27/06), the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/7/06) and others."
This article appears on the ACFC website as well:
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of ACFC.
If it's inaccurate or could be improved, please let me know.   Michael H 34 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything wrong with your statement. If the article was about the differences between the liberal foundation of the US system (Bill of Rights, etc.) verses Swedish democracy I would have more to say. But that's not what the article is about. Rogerfgay 10:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign to Defeat Shared Parenting 

message: There is a comment above that incorrectly identifies a potential source article as a blog. It got me to thinking though. My comment here is about the fact that WP frowns on bloggers as sources. I understand why generally blogs may not be regarded as credible sources (even though some are written by experts who have a great deal of credibility among readers, while certainly some are incredible and even nonsense (sort of like any source under such general scrutiny as blog, TV, newspapers, magazines, movies ...)). The point I want to make here is that general rejection of blog commentaries (even though I'm not a blogger) may be inappropriate in relation to this article. I think this is tied to problems in appropriately defining the article's scope. If you run across a central figure in the FR movement who regularly writes a blog - then certainly it is quite possible that comments in the blog may in some way accurately represent the views of the FR movement. By definition, the views expressed by someone central to the FR movement - regardless of venue - provide a credible representation of the views of the FR movement. The question is not whether you agree or disagree with the views expresssed in the blog, whether you think blogs should always be considered less credible than Jayson Bryce at the NY Times, or whether you think an FR activist can or cannot be trusted. The only question that is relevant is whether the blog commentary represents the views of the FR movement. If it does, it would be a very credible reference tied to a description of the FR movement. In fact, this easily goes beyond central figures in the movement. Whether or not the writer is close to and knowledgable about the FR movement is a more important consideration than whether a publication is online or not. Rogerfgay 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read carefully you will see that I didn't actually identify a potential source article as a blog.:-) But on your main point, luckily we don't need to reinvent the wheel on this one, since there are policies already in place.  See WP:SPS and  WP:SELFPUB.  In summary, as you seem to suggest, under certain limits websites and blogs are acceptable, which is why those of Sacks, Farrell, Baskerville etc have been used here. The critical features here are that the websites have to be by established experts, (and note how the policy strictly defines proving that someone is 'expert'), and information from them can be used in articles about themselves provided that is not contentious; is not unduly self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, and the article is not based primarily on such sources.  I have asked for the input on others about how to interpret these policies in this particular case at  --Slp1 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just trying to help out, and this is not the first time I've worked on a WP article. I think I've been through much of the initial hard learning and adaptation. I have also been writing and editing for many years - nonfiction - typically lots of references, necessity in objectivity, etc. Re: being an expert, I have literally appeared as an "expert" witness, testified before congress, written extensively on the subject, been published by people who regard me as an expert, cited in academic work, presented at conferences, have been an observer since the time I believe the movement was born .... but since my work - at least in one small area - may be one of the most authoritative on the subject; I'm not writing or editing the WP article (unless maybe if it's in an area outside my specialization). I'll suggest, but leave it to other editors to decide. Rogerfgay 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloggers as sources 

message: Articles by Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally in The Guardian promote a POV that family policy favored fathers - i.e. that fathers' rights activists are merely complaining that their advantageous positions w.r.t. family policy have been diminished. This is a biased pov from a source that (according to my read of the reliable source discussion related to this article) is not classified as a reliable source. The inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov. Rogerfgay 13:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I doubt you would find anybody that would agree that the Guardian is not a reliable source. It is a well-established newspaper with fact checking and editorial oversight.  But you are welcome to pop over to the noticeboard and check. Collier and Sheldon are well-published academics in their fields, have written a book published by a reputable third party publisher on the topic. They and their book, are in my humble opinion the most reliable source that we have here. The fact that you think it in not of neutral point of view suggests more to be that they don't happen to agree with your POV than anything else. --Slp1 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't recall whether you were involved in the reliable source discussion related to this article. Or - did I thank you for fairmindedness there? The final comment, apparently by an admin. was that reliable sources come only from recognized academic publications; excluding for example MensNewsDaily.com which has been in business since 2001. It is not merely in this case that The Guradian is not an academic source, it is that the article cited expresses a clear bias that has been transferred into the Wikipedia article. An article characterizing the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias. Rogerfgay 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Reliable source discussion referred to WP:RS#Scholarship. Rogerfgay 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am inclinded to delete the references to Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally and the material included that depends on their pov. It strikes me as inappropriate to rely on those who argue against fathers' rights - subtly or openly - to characterize the fathers' rights movement. The characterization that this is a reaction to diminished advantage is an easily recognizable counter-argument in the battle for fathers' rights. Rogerfgay 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Because you see these authors as an important part of the discussion, I have moved the citations to comments in another section. Rogerfgay 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read, as has been pointed out several times reliable sources.  You will see that you are mistaken in your intepretation of reliable sources policies, and that respected newspapers are considered reliable sources by WP standards. --Slp1 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV  & Reliable Sources problem 

message: I hope this doesn't seem discourteous but, are you kidding? This section was pretty much written to diss the fathers' rights movement, don't you think? Or is that only obvious to me? Tell me if you think so, and I'll explain. But I have to admit - first pass - it looks so obviously biased that I'm not sure that it needs an explanation. Rogerfgay 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in Background and history 

message: Here's a reference to an article in an academic journal:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/published/ps_oct_2004.htm
The article is also available on the website of the journal and in other web-based collections of academic works. But you have to pay fees to obtain memberships to access those other sites such as JSTOR (where it is beyond submission and actually available now) and Cambridge Journals. I am the owner of the document and have the right to redistribute / make available to the public. Other sources charge fees to keep their operations going, which provide one-stop-shopping for all published articles on their journals lists. Rogerfgay 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you confirm what Journal this was published in?  It is not clear from the link you provide.--Slp1 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Support Reference 

message: It seems pretty obvious to me that at least two additional sections were needed. "The divorce industry" lies at the heart of major complaints of the Fathers' Rights Movement and is a / possiblly the primary reason for their existence. This may be much clearer in the US than in some other countries - so pardon if UK editors don't see it as well at this point. But the history is that reforms in the US, where "the industry" did drive reforms, spread to other countries via political philosophy on "responsible parenting" rhetoric and welfare reform and such. Rogerfgay 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I sound like a broken record (or is it a CD these days?!) here, but please find reliable sources for all of these suggestions. Ideas are great but unless you can find sources they remain just original thoughts and research --Slp1 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you would need to be very careful that this didn't end up as a point of view fork. Even the title seems fairly POV to me Slp1 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sections 

message: I noticed in discussion on reliable sources that someone assumed that, since I have knowledge and have written about fathers' rights, that I must have a conflict of interest. I have no conflict of interest. Rogerfgay 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:COI, for the fact that COI if interest does not just cover financial issues.  The guidelines suggest that having a close personal interest, and wishing to promote that interest/group might be a conflict of interest.  Also "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."--Slp1 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sip1: I think we've all figured out at this point that you are a strong opponent of fathers' rights and that you're going to do your upmost to battle against a neurtral pov in this and related articles; and that it is you with the COI. Rogerfgay 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not so much.  But I am a strong opponent of people using Wikipedia to promote their views and opinions. So to people whose unsourced, one-sided, and/or POV edits/commentaries I disagree with/challenge/delete, it probably looks like I do. Too bad that you had to return on such a comment though. --Slp1 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, I'm not so easy to fool. You're pushing the opposition pov, which is not neutral. You're battling against a neutral pov in the way that most people do it. You do not have an argument to make based on logic, so you're attacking the person. Rogerfgay 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest