Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 4

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

Deletions of well-sourced material

Section is too long

In the last few days, there have once again been significant deletions of well-sourced material from this article, material sourced to multiple high quality academic sources; these deletions are, in my opinion, accompanied by misleading edit summaries:

response: there were three citations given, not just one as the edit summary implies; Messner states "FR activists who are predominately white, middle or working class...."[1]; Parker and Brott say that they "tend to be politically conservative, but share no single set of political views"[2]; and Crowley devotes an entire chapter of her book on the sociodemographic analysis of the movement; it is not available online, but her detailed findings support the statement above; an interview with her confirming this in part at least can be found here [3] One sentence about the composition of the FR movement is a significant aspect of this article, can hardly be described as undue weight, has been well sourced from multiple highly reliable sources, and should not be deleted without consensus obtained here on the talkpage.
response: if it is so unimportant and a dilution then why would this issue be mentioned by at least 4 reliable, mainstream academic sources in their discussions of the movement? Once again, get a consensus from other editors for the deletion of this well-sourced material, notable material. Note that I believe it should be included, as presumably does User:WLU who moulded it into its current form, as well as User:pfhorrest, who responded to a third opinion request about this issue.[4] --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Michael H has deleted the well-sourced material again, without responding to any of the concerns expressed here, and without an edit summary. I will give a certain period for him to explain or revert himself, and if there is no response will again request a third opinion on this matter, unless any other editor feels like giving their opinion in the interim.--Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of well-sourced material which may or may not be worthy for inclusion in the article

Once again, material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced. At least these edits are not of the type: "men are encouraged to be fathers when they can't." However, there is no value in including these sentences, and this is the main reason why they were deleted. They were deleted to improve the article.
(1) The "primarily white, middle-class, men..." was cherry-picked from a sentence written by Messner, who was making a different point, possibly to justify the way that fathers are treated. (In other words, it's okay for society to treat fathers the way it does because men are privileged.)
(2) "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." is not necessarily true for fathers' rights groups in certain countries, and thus is overly general. The statement is not merely US-centric, but it is certainly centric to something and it is therefore exclusionary.
(3) In regions where "primarily white, middle-class..." is true, it is also true for many, many, many other groups as well. In regions where the statement is true, these characteristics are not something that is specific to or distinguishes members of the fathers' rights movement from the population as a whole. The statement adds no value.
(4) "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." conflicts with another source which states that half of the members of the fathers' rights movement are women. I note that Messner did not provide a source for his assertion "primarily white, middle-class, men...", whose main point was to assert that men are privileged, but the authors of the statement that half of the members of the fathers' rights movement are women had access to membership data for the largest shared parenting organization in the world. I understand that the person who founded this organization was a woman. "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." is given undue weight.
(5) "differing viewpoints on how women and men compare" is something that is also true for the population as a whole and is therefore not something that is specific to or distinguishes members of the fathers' rights movement. It is given undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have, after a delay of 3 months, again restored the information deleted; the text is well-sourced to academic texts; the original research and advocacy motivation of the edit is very clear from reading the above from the above post. In addition, As MH34 knows, if you have reliable sources that contradict the information then feel free to add, not delete the information you disagree with, and that failure to listen to consensus. Specifically,

  • there are multiple sources (not just Messner)[5][6] (to which I could add[7]) that make the point about the racial and class make up of this movement. The original research and opinion about whether this reflects "society" is just that; find a source to make this is point for you if you wish. You are right that we could specify that these sources are referring to Western countries, so that caveat could and should be included and I have done so.
  • If you have a reliable source that half the movement are composed of women, then please provide a citation for this, and let's add it. I've looked and cannot find one.
  • per your point 4, reliable sources do not need to source their information; the fact that they are academics, publishing in academic journals/books is all that we require.
  • Regarding your deletion of the conservative/liberal wings of this movement, as I pointed out above a third opinion from an uninvolved editor, (as well as an unofficial one from WLU through a rewrite) agreed that the material should be included. Please stop these edits against consensus. --Slp1 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(I objected to the edit that I will call the "primarily white men edit" based on the 4 reasons listed above. Once again, material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced.)

Your edit summary statement that no explanation was provided for removing the "well sourced information" is contradicted by your rationalizations for imputing motives to me.

The source for half of the members are women is directly after the statement that "many women, including the second wives, girlfriends or close relatives of these fathers, are also members of the fathers' rights movement." Michael H 34 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

[8]Today, men's issues--principally fathers' issues--are where many of our nation's biggest gender inequities lie. And just as many men helped the women's movement, many women are stepping forward to help fathers, forming groups like Moms for Dads and the Second Wives Crusade. Today women make up half of the membership of the fathers' movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
You need something more authoritative than an opinion column from a father's rights activist (which can only be used with caution and not for this sort of statement of fact[9]) to contradict several academics, including one empirical study. And yes, well-sourced from multiple high quality academic sources is a reason for inclusion, and almost a requirement for inclusion per NPOV, particularly when no valid contradictory sources have even been provided. --Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(Slp1 just stated that Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson are fathers rights activists and therefore their statement of a "fact" is "not valid.)
The sentence from the article is clearly factually incorrect. "Primarily male, white, heterosexual, (tend to be) conservative." When you multiply the percentages of male (not even a majority according to two notable leaders of the FRM) x white (majority but US-centric and clearly less than 100%) x heterosexual (majority but less than 100%) x (tend to be conservative) hardly a majority (and at odds with politically diverse), you do not get a result that can be called a majority, and the word primarily is factually incorrect. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
MH24 Slp1 just stated that Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson are fathers rights activists and therefore their statement of a "fact" is "not valid. No, I didn't. Checking the link, you will see that per opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are not considered reliable sources for statement of facts. It has nothing to do with whether they are FR activists or not, and everything to do with the issue of the reduced fact checking given to such columns.--Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore the "primarily white male" edit, is based on a US-study is US-centric and most importantly, the sentence is not relevant (especially the term white) because it does not distinguish the FRM from the US population in general. For this reason it is clearly given undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
The four reasons ignore the fact that "primarily white, middle-class men" is justified by three sources, nearly verbatim. You don't get to remove it because you did some original research using random calculations and what you believe to be common sense. That "material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced" boggles my mind as an objection - well-sourced material is what the page should be built on. Otherwise, we're left with random opinions and calculations devised according to what we want them to say. Glenn Sacks is indeed publishing an opinion column in a self-published source and it astonishes me that this could be defended as a reliable alternative to publications by scholarly press like Cornell University Press, Rowman & Littlefield and ABC-CLIO. If you really feel strongly about the strength of Glenn Sacks column, I suggest bringing it up at WP:RSN. Slp1's comment is better interpreted as saying "Glenn Sacks column asserts his opinion that is contradicted by actual studies". It's not because Glenn Sacks is asserting a flawed fact that it doesn't get to stand, it is because Glenn Sacks is not asserting a fact - he is asserting his opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"That "material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced" boggles my mind as an objection...."

(This is from the editor who is removing well sourced edits on the Parental Alienation Syndrome article. The well sourced edits from the Parental Alienation Syndrome article are not controversial and most importantly they are unrefuted and one in particular represents not just a significant view, but the nearly universally accepted view. In this case however, the "primarily white male" edit is contradicted by a reliable source.)

(1) The statement that women comprise half of the fathers rights movement is a statement of fact, not opinion and was made by people who have access to lists of members. (2) The statement is from a reliable source. You imply that it was only self-published but if you look further, it was published in the Minnesota Tribune. (3) Slp1 and now WLU justify the edit based only on the statement "reliably sourced" and did not address one of the concerns that I posted on this page. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sacks cites no statistics, no source of this assertion, in an article with minimal fact checking and overview that make a source reliable, so it should be presented as his opinion. Despite this, there is merit to including it unless one of the other sources contradicts it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The statistic cited was one half. The coauthor of the article, Dianna Thompson, is a past President of ACFC and had access to membership information. Did the scholarly sources provide numerators and denominators? Michael H 34 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
That's not a statistic, that's a factoid opinion with no description of how it was gathered. Were the claims current? Was there a date given when the statistics were gathered? What kind of oversite does the Star Tribune have? Do they check stats? Did she have current access? They are barely-even footing as far as reliability, and I'm sure RSN would be happy to give a lengthier assessment. It's fine as is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I disagree with the inclusion of the Sacks' and Thompson's claim. Why are we giving such weight to an opinion column published by two fathers' rights activists, who don't give any information about where they got this figure? We already have a sentence about women's involvement in the FRM (at the end of the paragraph) sourced to much higher quality academic and media sources, including an empirical study by Crowley, whose study found percentages at 85% men and 15% women which directly contradicts their claim. In addition, to all of the other books, summaries etc, there is this academic study [10] which investigated FRGs and described that "women occasionally joined the groups". I don't think it warrants inclusion; we have lots of much better sources and should be aiming to move as much as possible towards the higher quality sources per WP:V.--Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it appears "Mom for Dads", the specifically pro-FR's mother's group cited in the article, probably disappeared soon after the article was written.[11][12][13][14]. This is original research, of course, but I think supports my view that there is a significant danger this 7 year old opinion column about one of the the FRM 'talking points' is being given undue unweight currently.--Slp1 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My support for inclusion was based on not seeing specific stats or research in the sources I reviewed. With sources that directly contradict the assertion, it should be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The one-half statistic was questioned because information about how it was derived was not included in the article. Did Crowley provide the numerator and denominator and any other information about how the 15% female statistic was derived? Michael H 34 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations - "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion - "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."
Given the fact that this opinion piece is contradicted by an actual reliable source, we shouldn't put it in no matter what. Objecting to the edit because you don't like it is inappropriate. It is verifiable that the statement exists in an actual reliable source, so some opinion column doesn't get press. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
RSN posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The one-half statistic was questioned in part because information about how it was derived was not included in the article. Did Crowley provide the numerator and denominator and any other information about how the 15% female statistic was derived? Michael H 34 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
The following is a trifle moot, since independent editors here at the RSN posting concur that the inclusion of the opinion column information is not justified in this article. Only part of the objection to the objection to the "one half" claim is related to its lack of derivation; the major one is and has always been that we privilege high quality academic sources; Op-ed pieces are not considered reliable sources of fact, most especially when they are directly contradicted by the academic research. In fact, the information you request has been available for a long time in the sources I have cited in the article and on this talkpage. Can you provide the same information about methodology for the Sacks statistics? But like I said, this seems a moot point given the comments here and at the RSN noticeboard and especially since nobody is actually proposing including the specific 85-15% breakdown in the article.--Slp1 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I cannot provide the same information about the methodology for the Thompson/Sacks statistic. I merely noted that as President of ACFC, Dianna Thompson had access to membership information. Based on your response, I'll check the sources. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
I question the Gavanas citation as a source for the "primarily white male" sentence. Perhaps I did not find the sentence that was used as the source.
Gavanas did not state that members of fathers' rights groups are primarily..., she stated that fathers' rights groups primarily represent....
There was no url for the Crowley citation.Michael H 34 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
No, you would have to get the Crowley book; or you could read her research work in the other journals where she has published it, for example [15][16]; but see here and here for her own summary of her results that are web-accessible for you. I actually went over this same territory and provided some of this same material for you in February [17] --Slp1 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Further discussion on this point is a waste of time. The posting on the reliable sources noticeboard clearly supports the idea that there is no reason ti cite an opinion piece as if it could in any way be more relevant than several reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my objection that "primarily white working class male" is not a distinguishing feature of members of the fathers rights movement among the population of its members, and in addition to the source that casts some doubt on "primarily male", I objected to the significance of this information. Slp1 had asked why do 4 sources include this information. Yesterday I stated that the Gavanas citation should not count as one of the sources since "members are" is not what she wrote. She wrote that FRGs "represent."
This information was not necessarily treated as significant by the Messner source. It was included as a phrase in a sentence in that was about something else.
In addition, I seem to recall that one of the Messner sources cited Gavanas as his source of information.
Thank you for the link to the Crowley source. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
The Crowley statistic was based on 158 interviews. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
"there are multiple sources (not just Messner)[18][19] (to which I could add[20]) that make the point about the racial and class make up of this movement. "
Of the above, the first is Gavanas, who used the word "represent", and the third cites Crowley. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Based on the above, I removed the Gavanas and Messner sources for the sentence. Although it is contradicted by the newspaper article by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks, the Crowley source supports the statement. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
And I have restored them. This attempt to pick away at academic sources is thoroughly inappropriate and in my view tendentious. Yes, the term Gavanas chooses to use is "represent" presumably for the sake of variety, given that here she is much more explicit. [21]. I will switch it to this one if you would like. Messner is talking about the FRM and makes this claim about them. That's enough. If you don't think that these are reliable sources for the statement made then please go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get agreement there; I will abide by the result.--Slp1 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The alternate Gavanas source does not support what you added to the article either. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Page 11 of Gavanas "Despite their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomic advantages in work and the family - both before and after divorce (Messner 1997, 47)." So, it does support it, it was one page further along. So I'll revert for you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The notability of the information included in the article was questioned. The characteristics added to the article are not distinguishing features among the general population of the countries where many of its members live. The notability of the information is further questionable because currently, the article includes information based on sentences whose primary purpose is something other than the information being added to the article. However, the Gavanas source currently included in the article includes a direct statement, which can be used as a source, but the sentence in the article needs to be amended in order to communicate what Gavanas wrote. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
What do you mean by "notability" in this context? How does removing the reference outright amend a sentence? What amendment would you suggest? What does "The characteristics added to the article are not distinguishing features among the general population fo the countries where many of its members live" mean? Where is your citation to justify this statement, without which it is an opinion of an editor, original research and therefore looks more like POV-pushing than neutral editing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
ec. Who questioned the notability of the sentence? You, I think. That's fine, but unfortunately, when this fact is commented on by multiple high-quality academic sources as a feature of the group, and has also been noted in an empirical study, then you'll need very strong counter-evidence to convince others that it is not "notable" enough for inclusion. But maybe you can; with WLU I urge you to see outside voices through a request for comment or a posting on a noticeboard (e.g. WP:NPOVN if you feel that others will be convinced where we haven't been. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is NO evidence of notability for the sentence that you added to the article. NO authors wrote a sentence that is the equivalent to the sentence that you added to the article. You selected a phrase from a sentence that was used to state something different.

Gavanas did write a full sentence supporting the revised sentence. The revised sentence has at least some evidence of notability. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notability is irrelevant to inclusions of sentences. Notability only affects the existence of pages. Stop saying notability, figure out what you're actually trying to say and be clearer, and stop trying to use an editorial to support facts when this has already been pointed out as inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't source sentences with phrases. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually we edit according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. That means
Your latest addition to the lead does not follow the guidelines because it is not an accurate summary of the information contained in main article; it is referenced by an opinion column (ruled inappropriate by independent editors on RSN), and a book that I am not convinced you have actually read, though please do prove me wrong below.
You have once again deleted a sentence about the composition of the group, this time saying that "we don't source sentences with phrases". In fact there were multiple references given, including one that consists of an empirical study of described in a chapter of this book by a Rutgers professor: a fact I have pointed out several times. I am going to rework the sentence in an attempt to address some of your concerns; and will add solid references. If you still object, please discuss your concerns here, rather than reverting yet again.
Frankly, Michael, I've just about had enough. I'm nearly ready to take up User:WLU's suggestion that your conduct has reached the point where a topic ban or similar is the only real solution to the ongoing tendentious editing. Please step back and consider carefully.--Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reverted sentence is clearly sourced by Gavanas. Why do you object to this sentence? The sentence you wrote is original research. It is a sentence sourced by phrases and the results of a small US-based study. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


The sentence you have reverted is also clearly sourced by Gavanas where it is stated "their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men";(p11) and "Unlike men's and father's rights organizations, mythopoetic groups, and other largely white, middle-class and heterosexual men's groups.....";)(p15)[23] and "One of the main functions of fathers' rights group is to lobby.... for (primarily white and middle class) men with divorce and custody problems.(p11)[24] Contrary to your claim, the sentence I wrote is not in any way original research: it is, as you say in your subsequent sentence, sourced from one of the two empirical studies of the composition of the group available on the movement (I will add the second, that is not a US study, in my revert), as well as restore from the two other reliable sources. You do not have consensus, Michael. These are quality sources; that Gavanas once used some variation, using the word "represent" is not an excuse to avoid the main, empirically derived, well supported demographic information. Stop. --Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a source that states that 50% of the members of the FRM are women. This source was challenged for stating an opinion. Now, the Gavanas and Messner sources are allowed to substitute because they have been classified as scholarly. The problem is that these sources do not even devote an entire sentence to "primarily white, working-class, male." These sources state that members of the fathers' rights movement, who are primarily white, working-class, males, do not realize that they are privileged. This is a statement of opinion.

Here's the source:

:"Despite their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomic advantages in work and the family - both before and after divorce (Messner 1997, 47)."

Slp1 states that her edit is well sourced. It is not. Now that she has reverted, the article contains "sentences that are sourced by phrases." Furthermore, the sentences from which the phrases are taken are statements of opinion. She does not have consensus for her version of the sentence. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Incredibly an additional source was added. The new source was the report on a study of 32 fathers, who are members of the fathers' rights movement. The authors selected to study fathers and therefore 100% of the participants of the study were male. Are we expected to believe that this study contains information indicating that members of the fathers' rights movement are primarily white working class males?

Slp1 has NOT stated a single objection to the clearly sourced sentence from the Gavanas article that Fathers' rights groups primarily represent white working class males. Instead she is sourcing sentences with phrases from sentences that state an opinion. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's the problem, Michael.

  • Your "half the movement consists of women" comment is not just an opinion, but comes from an "Opinion column" from FR activists published in a newspaper. The sources that I have provided comes from scholarly journals and academic texts. WLU, I and other editors at the WP:RSN determined that precedence should be given to these scholarly works, per WP policy. Arguing that these are just an opinions too misses the point about reliable sourcing; it is also just plain wrong, since we have two empirical studies saying something different, neither of could possibly argued is an opinion, nor just a phrase, per your frequently repeated (and already disproved) "sentences that are sourced by phrases" complaint. (And BTW, if you had actually read the Bertoia and Drakich article, you would know that your original research assumptions that 100% of the people they interviewed were male is also actually false).
  • Members of the FRM movement have been noted by scholars to be very keen on pushing this exact point about the composition of the movement."Many of these [FRM] groups are concerned to point out that they have members who are women and sometimes women as key players in the organisation" (Kaye and Tolmie, (1998); "Moreover, and as is frequently emphasized by FRGs themselves, their membership does not consist entirely of fathers" (Collier and Sheldon, 2006). As an admitted a member of the FRM yourself, this continued effort to push your FR talking point contrary to consensus, higher quality sources etc is duly noted. So let me be clear. I object to your attempt to advocate and push your point of view by seeking to obfuscate the demographics of the group using the term "represent", when multiple high quality sources (including Gavanas herself) say something very different.

Please self-revert, Michael. --Slp1 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, Michael, you are suggesting that Slp1 is actively misrepresenting a source to win a content dispute. Your own sources for your side of the dispute have clearly been shown inadequate by third parties. You're not substantively addressing the points raised by others, and appear to be objecting on aesthetic (i.e. preference) grounds rather than factual grounds. There are four sources for the claim that membership is primarily white heterosexual males; you've removed three of them, and replaced it with a statement that is substantially different from the original well-sourced one ("representing" is different from "composed of"). I can't see any way to make objections clearer, and it is apparent to me that engaging on the talk page has not been helpful despite weeks of trying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"You're not substantively addressing the points raised by others...."
I'm not the one who sourced a sentence with a phrase from a sentence stating an opinion. I added a replacement sentence which is properly sourced, but if you prefer to delete it, please do so.
I politely request a response to the following questions:
Question 1: Based on Slp1's edit, does the article include a sentence that is sourced by a phrase?
Question 2: Is the phrase that is being used to source the sentence that was added to the article by Slp1 included in a statement of opinion by the authors?
Here's the source:
"Despite their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomic advantages in work and the family - both before and after divorce (Messner 1997, 47)." Michael H 34 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"since we have two empirical studies saying something different"

Question 3: What DID the authors of these small studies say? Michael H 34 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Question 1: No. As has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over again and over and over againthe edit has been sourced to multiple high-quality independent sources, not just Gavanas. Please stop repeating this "sourced from a phrase" motif which is (a) not true, and (b) irrelevant.
Question 2: see above.
Question 3: I'd need more specifics of exactly what you'd like to know about the studies, but given the topic at hand I can tell you that they both found 85% men and 15% women in the groups, that whitecollar/professionals represented 66-78% of the groups and 87% were Caucasian (Crowley only). Do you have any other empirical studies to offer us, that would contradict these?
Thank you for giving your permission to delete your edit; I will certainly be doing so.

--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Members of the FRM movement have been noted by scholars to be very keen on pushing this exact point about the composition of the movement. "Many of these [FRM] groups are concerned to point out that they have members who are women and sometimes women as key players in the organisation" (Kaye and Tolmie, (1998); "Moreover, and as is frequently emphasized by FRGs themselves, their membership does not consist entirely of fathers" (Collier and Sheldon, 2006)

Perhaps what FRGs are "concerned to point out" and "frequently emphasize" is something that is true, and your characterization of this as "pushing" is an example of your personal bias. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm just citing what reliable sources say about FR activists, and what, sad to say, I (and others) have also observed in your editing. But as before I'm always open to new, reliable sources saying something different from those found to date; and you can always seek help at the various noticeboards about WP (e.g. WP:AN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN etc. if you feel that you have a case to make about something. --Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This kind of hairsplitting and simply incorrect summary and referencing is the reason why I consider engaging on the talk page to be a total waste of time at this point. MH34, you either have absolutely no appreciation of what the policies on verifiability and reliable sources mean, or you are deliberately obfuscating. It doesn't matter if it's phrases or whole blocks of text - if it's the best source we have, it's what we represent. In this case, multiple sources all converge on the same thing. The fact that FRM activists object to this information because it makes them look bad is irrelevant, the point is several sources say the same thing and personal preference isn't a reason to remove it from the page. Your quotes do not support your point - do I need to point this out? The sources currently on the page state that the groups are primarily composed of white, middle/working class, heterosexual men, an point your cherry-picked quotes do not contradict in the slightest. That some women are involved in the movement is not under dispute, but it is well supported that those "some women" are wildly outnumbered by the much greater number of men that form the substantial bulk of the movement. I do not believe I can be any clearer, blunter or firmer without using profanity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) The primary purpose of the Meissner and Gavanas sentences was to assert an opinion. The phrase, which was used as a citation for information in the article, was used by the authors as the premise for a sentence that asserted an opinion. The phrase is also the opinion of the authors and is unsupported by any data.

(2) It is highly inappropriate original research to use a small US-based study for a global statement that 15% of the members of the FRM are women.

(3) WLU removed a well sourced statement that FRGs in the US report that 30-50% of the phone calls that they receive are from women. I restored it. The information was sourced by Throwaway Dads... by Parke and Brott page 187. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

There is a profound misunderstanding of original research shown here. Original research is when an editor adds information that cannot be sourced. This is 'research'. The information you have delete comes from the two major studies of FRM demographics that have been done, published in reliable journals. One was not US-based. If you read the papers you would see that in terms of scope in which the information was gathered, neither of them called be could be called small. Please cease deleling this information. --Slp1 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My information was well-sourced, but WLU deleted it again. Your information is not well sourced. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Why did WLU delete the 30-50%

I deleted the 30-50% because I searched inside the book on Google books version and found no mention of that particular statistic. Please indicate the page number it is found on, it was sourced to any one of eight possible pages in Parke (142 or 148-55) and didn't appear on any of the pages I reviewed. That's why. Please address this point before re-inserting the information. I also object to this fact being involved because I see it as rather meaningless - 30-50% of the phone calls being from women is rather irrelevant, particularly when you're deleting information about membership numbers. That's a separate discussion - assuming the information can be verified,, we can then discuss whether it is appropriate.
As for the "information not being well sourced", that's frankly bullshit. The information from the first set of references was sourced to:
  • Haworth Press, which publishes academic and professional books and journals
  • Rowman & Littlefield, which also publishes scholarly and academic works
  • Journal of Family Issues, an academic journal published by SAGE Publications, an academic publisher of journals and books.
All are equal in wikipedia's eyes to ABC-CLIO which you left in. You also changed "composed of" to "represents", which I've objected to before, you've never replied to, and as I said before, this is a different sense completely. "Represents" in the sentence "Fathers' rights groups in the West primarily represent white, middle or working class, heterosexual men" makes it sound like it's a demographically diverse group of Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian and mixed-race group of heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual men from all different socioeconomic groups that is defending the rights of a bunch of middle-class heterosexual whites. This is not what several sources state, they state that it's composed primarily of white, middle and working class heterosexuals. Very different things.
The second chunk of references you removed were to:
    • Greenwood Press, part of the Greenwood Publishing Group, which is part of ABC-CLIO and also an academic publisher. That's a double-standard that really looks like POV-pushing; why accept ABC-CLIO when you appear to agree with the information, but not when you disagree?
    • Aldine Transaction, an imprint of Transaction Publishers, again specializing in academic publications.
This whole discussion is absurd. There seems to be no reason to remove the text except that you don't seem to agree with it. While we're discussing publishers and reliability, Baskerville, 2007 is used A LOT in the page, 22 times. I don't know much about Cumberland House Publishing, but it seems like a good idea to review its uses and make sure it's not undue weight on a nonscholarly volume. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This section alone is nearly 50,000 characters. Please raise new points in a new section. This section is also settled - objections have been raised, addressed with reference to the policies, and settled. So there's no reason to re-edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Father's Rights button

Can we get a wiki Father's Rights button? Ks64q2 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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


Verification request

This edit[25] by Michael H 34 adds a reference to Farrell's Father and Child reunion, giving a page range of 1-25.

Michael H, per WP:Vcan you please give the precise page number that verifies the sentence about women in the FRM, and since the book is not available online, type out the appropriate sentences from Farrell below so that the content can be verified? Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you have edited this page, you must have seen this, so can you provide this information please? Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not add that citation. I restored the sentence based on the article that appeared in the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Yes you did add the citation, here [26]. And you know that that the Minnesota Star-Tribune is not an adequate source per the WP:RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not the editor who first added the citation to the article. I removed the citation. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Both true, though you did readd it, no? But I appreciate that you did remove it, and alter the sentence that something that can be verified by you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability/Sourcing/Attribution/Undue

  • WLU [27] brings up a subject that that I have long been concerned with and have wished to address in this article. [28]. Stephen Baskerville's book (which remains unreviewed by any independent source, as far as I can see) is used to cite large chunks of this article. Very frequently, B's book is given as the one and only source for a statement saying "Members of the Fathers' Rights Movement state...". Baskerville is not "Members (plural) of the FRM" making the sentences unverifiable, and unless there is some evidence that other members of the FRM concur, almost certainly undue weight is being given to the views of this one activist. Baskerville is just one example of a larger article trend that in which what is claimed to be the core views of the FRM have been extrapolated from the many and various opinions expressed on/in fathers' rights activists' websites/speeches/books. Where multiple sources converge on a particular point, this may be reasonable, but where it appears that only one person/group has made the point then there is a strong danger that original research and/or advocacy is taking place, and/or that undue weight is being given to it. I should point out that this problem of verifiability, attribution, undue weight, also applies to some beginning "critics state...". In order to make clear the extent of the problem, I will correctly attribute some of the sections particularly affected, starting from the bottom.
  • In my view, the best way of dealing with this issue will be to rework this article to include information sourced to secondary sources (journals, books, newspapers) written about the movement, rather than cherry picking points from material by the movement. It is clear from WP:V and WP:RS that these sources are preferred in writing articles, and luckily it turns out that there are now many academic and research papers and books written about the movement, as well as numerous news and magazine articles discussion the movement's goals and activities.
  • It is my intention to begin this process fairly soon. Policy-based comments on this proposal would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Baskerville certainly is not the most reliable of sources - their webpage doesn't appear on the first page of the google search. As far as I can tell, they're part of Sourcebooks, but can't really tell much from that. Certainly doesn't have the impact or reliability of a scholarly publishing house. I've posted a question at the reliable sources noticeboard. I agree that research on the FRM is preferred as a source to research or opinions by the FRM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Baskerville isn't the best of sources and doesn't have the most impressive publisher, but I do think it is a reliable source; particularly for the opinion of Stephen Baskerville, a prominent American FR activist. My point has less to do with the reliability of the work per se and more to the fact that his views have been presented, over and over again, as core beliefs of the FRM (e.g what Members of the FRM state....), without any evidence that he is speaking for anybody other himself. If you look at his book you will find he is, for the most part, he is making a specific personal argument, and not talking about the FRM or their views at all. This contrasts with academic sources such as Bertoia, Crowley, Gavanas, Collier etc who as academics from a variety of disciplines have stood back, studied multiple FR groups and individuals, analyzed their views, and synthesized the primary positions, attitudes and action points of FR groups. Per WP policy, these kind of secondary sources are to be preferred, rather than picking out points from speeches and books by Baskerville, Schafly etc. We need to include the points that have been noticed by independent sources. That's not to say that the secondary sources won't actually support Baskerville's points. Glancing through Crowley, for example, I note that some points made by Baskerville about no-fault divorce are reported by her to be a frequent viewpoint of members FRM. --Slp1 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If there are any scholarly sources that agree with Baskerville, I'd certainly substitute. I think Baskerville is adequate for any points that aren't particularly controversial and not otherwise verified, but aside from that it's not a great source. So basically, good changes and good suggestions! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's edits

  • Despite objections from multiple editors here and on the WP:RSN Michael H continues to reinsert information cited to an opinion column by FR activists in order to "counter" reliable empirical studies against consensus. Independent sources have stated that "don't think adding the sentence is justified" and that "solid published books trump a "Talk Radio Host / Columnist / Commentator" for statistics." Yet the reinsertions continue.
  • Another sentence has been added saying that the FR movement receives lots of phone calls from women; this says absolutely nothing informative about the demographics of the movement: we have no idea where and how these so-called statistics were collected or even why the women were calling (maybe to complain????).
  • We know that FR activists are at pains to push their claims about large numbers of women in the movement (see Kaye and Tolmie, and Collier and Sheldon quoted above) and that Michael H is simply continuing his longterm POV edit warring on this subject. I will not delete this information again today, but would strongly support any other editor who does so. If he then reverts again without getting consensus, I will report him for edit warring.--Slp1 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the 30-50% claim. MH34 has objected to your edits in the past because they were based on sentences from scholarly volumes, yet wants to include this edit despite being based on a single unreferenced sentence in a popular volume ([29], first paragraph). That's not only POV-pushing, that's hypocritical. A lot of fighting over a bunch of poorly-sourced information of dubious merit is a huge waste of time. Also, I've issues with using "X and Y believe..." when it's based on a research article in a peer-reviewed journal. If it's researched, it's not like we're taking it on faith or the authors are basing it on their gut instincts, they've done the research. Literally. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement about who is included as a member of the FRM.

The biased scholars, Messner and Gavanas, did NOT "do the research" as WLU suggested above. Slp1 used a phrase from a sentence of opinion (paraphrased: "members of the fathers' rights movement, who are mostly white, heterosexual males, do not appreciate their privilege in the workplace") in order to source a sentence in the article. WLU removed attribution to the statement. It was inappropriate.

Slp1 has also used personification in the article, which is unencyclopedic. Two empirical studies did not conclude anything, their authors did. On the archived version of this page I politely asked what did the authors of these studies say. I did not get a reply to this question.

WLU has frequently and inappropriately removed the well sourced statement that "fathers' rights groups report that 30-50% of the phone calls they receive are from women." The statement itself is uncontentious and includes attribution.

Although Slp1 disagreed with the inclusion of what she referred to as "phony statistics", the 30-50% statistic is given attribution and there can be no objection.

The apparent discrepancy between the 15% statistic and the 30-50% statistic hinges on the issue of who is included as members of the fathers' rights movement. The 15% statistic may be based on what one might refer to as core members who do a great deal of work on behalf of the fathers' rights group. The 30-50% statistic may be based on those who have contacted but have done little or no work on behalf of the fathers' rights' group.

If you take the view that those who support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting should be included as members of the fathers' rights movement, then clearly nearly 50% of the movement are women because in more than one referendum 85% of voters support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The article already included the following sentence: "Some fathers’ rights groups have been short-lived and unstable, as members and leaders do not remain with the group after they have been helped." WLU added a sentence about Australia that repeated the idea that fathers' rights groups have been short lived and unstable. It was removed based on undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

1. What evidence is there that Messner and Gavanas are biased?
  • Messner is published by Rowman & Littlefield, making it reliable.
  • Gavanas is published by ABC-CLIO, making it reliable.
  • Both texts are adequate to verify the statement in my mind. The line is also justified by Crowley, 2006 (Haworth Press), and Bertoia & Drakich, 1993 (in a peer-reviewed journal). So even if M&G were removed, there's still two sources there. Sourcing it to Bertoia & Drakich alone seems fine to me, that’s the source cited by Gavanas. It’s funny that MH34 would object to Gavanas for being just a sentence in a book, when he continues to re-insert the idea that 30-50% of phone calls to FRM groups are from women. I’ve asked this question before but apparently despite reading this, the information was still replaced. Please explain why the 30-50% information, sourced to a non-scholarly book, justifying a rather trivial piece of information that really looks like self-promotion on the part of a fathers’ rights activist, is worth keeping, while a highly relevant bit of information about the demographic makeup of a group, sourced to no less than four reliable scholarly sources, needs to be removed?
2. Portraying journal articles as “just the opinions of the authors” ignores the research they performed, the peer review their articles underwent, and their status as unchallenged within the literature. If there are scholars who point out that their methods, conclusions or information is incorrect, if this is egregious and objected to within the scholarly community (who we should be drawing most of our information from), then it should be easy to demonstrate this with scholarly sources. So please provide them rather than simply objecting from your own opinion.
3. Trying to frame the phone call percentages as uncontroversial ignores this comment I made today, and this objection I made last week. You are also obviously aware that Slp1 objects to the statistics, and attribution is not all that is needed to put some information in the page – it has to be relevant and due weight. This is undue weight on some guy’s opinion in a nonscholarly volume used in a way that deliberately makes the movement look more inclusive than it necessarily is. The 30-50% figure is also meaningless because, as Slp1 said before, are those complaints? Are those inquiries? Are they from the media? How many are they total?
4. Regards this edit, the objections of the RSN was not that it was an opinion piece published online. The objection was that it was an opinion piece, period. It doesn’t matter where it was published, or that it was originally published as an editorial in a newspaper, it was an editorial and can not be used to contradict scholarly works. Wikipedia publishes verifiable facts, not truth. Appending a whole bunch of opinion, which is original research, to your reasoning and no facts, doesn’t mean we’re going to ignore core policies because you don’t like the results. So unless you’ve got a source to justify your objections, stop making them. Further, someone making a phone call (which is what the 30-50% statistic appears to refer to [30]) doesn’t translate to signing up for the program. I’ve called the police before, but that doesn’t make me a cop. Really, there is absolutely no rationale for including the 30-50% figure at all, let alone conflating it with membership statistics.
5. Your last point again has no sources, and I’m not even bothering to figure out what it’s about.
6. Regards the longevity of groups, I included the information I found in the source, noticed that it was duplicated, and combined it. I do so here.
Michael H 34, your assertions and edits are not supported by the sources you cite, by the policies you are not citing, or by other editors on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Further, someone making a phone call (which is what the 30-50% statistic appears to refer to [31]) doesn’t translate to signing up for the program.

That's your opinion. It conflicts with the notable opinion of Sacks and Thompson.

"Regards this edit, the objections of the RSN was not that it was an opinion piece published online. The objection was that it was an opinion piece, period."

I removed the "many women" statement sourced by the Minnesota Star Tribune article based on the RSN. It was sourcing a statement that did not include attribution. The Minnesota Star Tribune column is now used to source the attributed opinion of the authors, and the previous objection to the appropriateness of the column can no longer apply.

(1) The definition of who is a member of the movement depends on the POV of the person who is defining what it means to be a member. (2) Messner and Gavanas are biased. (3) There is ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for excluding the attributed opinion of notable leaders of the FRM, Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson, and there is no basis for removing the well attributed sentence that FRGs report that 30-50% of the phone calls they receive are from women. (4) You removed the section labeled Analyses and have conflated analyses with demographics. (5) You have placed undue emphasis on PAS. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Are you telling me that every time you make a phone call, you sign up for, and become a member of that organization? That's prima facie absurd, and if you seriously think that justifies the information being on the page, I can't be bothered to discus the point futher.
You are completely missing the problem with the Minnesota Star Tribune article. It was initially published as an editorial, an opinion piece, in a newspaper, by advocates who are members of the movement and not independent scholars. It has no weight and is not in a position to contradict scholarly sources. Clearly against guidelines on reliable sources and the noticeboard discussion. Attribution is not, and was never the problem, the problem was that it was an opinion piece never included as part of a scholarly contribution.
Point one is a word game, and lacks sources. Point two is blatantly, nakedly your opinion and carries no weight whatsoever. It's frankly unbelievable to me that you can claim this as a reason to edit the page. Point three is dealt with before, the point is a single sentence in a nonscholarly book (and I know you object to single sentence references when they are contrary to your opinion), is contradicted by real research, and that the organizations claim to field a lot of phone calls from women adds nothing to the page of merit. Nothing. Point 4, I've retitled as a subsection of demographics, but it relates - overall broad characteristics of the groups' members. "Analyses" denigrates the information, as if it's mere sophistry rather than research. Regards point five, I'm completely comfortable removing the section on PAS entirely, and have done so. It's a discredited theory (even discredited is excessive, since it was never credited or accepted in the first place) and an irrelevant tangent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with much of WLU's analysis above. I'll just that add that while attributing information can be a good approach to fairly presenting competing views of a subject, it can also be misused in order to introduce POV into an article by diminishing the relative importance of one view, and/or elevating the importance of another. "In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." This edit (reinserted multiple times) has precisely this problem; it is an attempt to give a (minority) claim articulated by FR activists in an opinion column parity with the mainstream findings of two peer-reviewed scholarly studies (and other high quality sources).This edit is another example of an attempt to marginalize the multiply sourced, mainstream academic through attribution, and there are others of course.
  • MH34:"I politely asked what did the authors of these studies say. I did not get a reply to this question." Yes you did.[32] However, please note that while I am generally happy to help as much as possible, it's not really my responsibility to go to the library for you.
  • You must stop edit-warring against consensus, MH34. If you have a good argument you will convince me. And if you are not satisfied with what editors here think then, as I have said before several times before[33][34], please seek help from noticeboards, WP:RFC etc.--Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree on all counts. When the source is a scholarly publication without an explicit record of dispute by relevant scholars (and tentatively by knowledgable non-scholarly individuals recognized for their expertise or informed knowledge), it doesn't need attribution, it needs a simple statement of fact. Research trumps "gut knowledge" by people involved with the movement. Fathers' rights activists do not get equal voice to researchers studying the movement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"(maybe to complain????)"

"doesn't mean they signed up for the program"

Your analyses are irrelevant. Sacks and Thompson are notable and their opinion is presented as opinion not as fact. There is no basis for removing Sack's and Thompson's opinion from the article, especially as I have pointed out that who is considered a member of the fathers' rights movement is clearly a matter of opinion. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

There was no basis for WLU to dilute the opinion of Warren Farrell. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

So while our policy-based analyses are irrelevant, your opinion about who might or might not be considered a member of the movement and whether unsubstantiated factoids from an opinion column are "notable" are correct, and allow you disregard consensus, here and at the WP:RSN, and revert yet again? I don't think so, Michael. You've been reverted multiple times, and are going to be again. Get consensus here FIRST.--Slp1 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The one area where we do get to analyze is questions of undue weight. This is clearly undue weight on an tiny minority opinion of dubious merit, that doesn't say anything about the topic of the page. Also clearly edit warring and tendentious editing. Kudos on remaining below the three-revert rule limit, but that's not really something to brag about when the same set of edits has been replaced repeatedly. Get some more references for the contentious information, to demonstrate due weight and some substantive and meaningful facts, but don't fight over the same material with nothing to back it up. As for Farrell, the section discussing him went from:

...posits that fathers are now transitioning from gender-based roles to more flexible roles, similar to the changes made by women since the 1960s. He also states that the movement is a civil rights movement for children, because in his view, the children of divorce raised equally by fathers do better psychologically, socially, academically, and physically. Since children cannot fight for their rights, he argues that they need legal representation by their fathers.

to

...thinks that similar to women in the 1960s, fathers are transitioning from gender-based to more flexible family roles. Farrell also believes the movement helps children by increasing the number who are raised by both parents.

The differences are relatively minor, with less reason for his thought process but still the essential idea. If this is truly the substantive reason for the edit warring, try making small changes to this section rather than a blanket revert. I don't think the longer section is much better, and framing it as a children's rights issue seems a little histrionic (and undue weight - I'd be happier if someone else agreed with him on this point), but I've made a change to replace some old content and details. So that reason to revert is now gone. I am still concerned about the weight given to this section, and wonder about it being once again the Fathers' Rights Movement hijacking another issue to support their own agenda. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have discussion on how a very controling mother seeks to limit contact of the father and his family in order to ensure that only the mother's views and beliefs are passed on to the child. Also the extreme methods, including accusations of abuse in order to get what the mother wants. Also discussion where a child is cut off from the father's family and is so much like the mother that the child and the father's family cannot be reunited? Also discussion of the harm to the adult child who has made little or no effort to maintain relationship with the father and the effects that this situation has regarding the father's family inheritance(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.131.6 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be possibly parental alienation syndrome, topics have to relate specifically to the fathers' rights movement. Putting in a lot of data on a tangent is coatracking, which isn't allowed. Those issues all seem way to specific for this page, there would need to be reliable sources specifically linking FRM to these issues with appropriate weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This whole page is not neutral and does not even touch upon the propaganda and lies that fathers rights members promote. I have added some aspects of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymum (talk • contribs)

Fathers' rights to infanticide

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

Alimony Reform

This seems like a highly controversial site. I don't mean to add to the controversy, but many I know in the Alimony Reform movement share the same values and goals of the FRM. For many men, large, life-time alimony award to working ex-wifes prevent career moves that would enable more time for children and child raising.

We also believe that the current laws on alimony encourage acrimonious legal battles between parting spouses that ultimately hurt children by creating a hostile divorce environment. Clear alimony guidelines (the goal of Alimony Reform) to replace vague state statues and complex case law would make divorces less contentious.

I have added alimony reform as another aspect of the Fathers' Rights movement in the introduction. I would like to add a section on this unless others widely object.

02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTiger1985 (talk • contribs)

You have added unverifiable information to the lead. So I have removed it (again). If you have a source, that this is a concern for the FRM, not just your opinion, then please produce it. And read WP:LEAD too. Per this guideline, the introduction must summarize the article. If it ain't in the article it doesn't go in the lead (especially followed by a citation that doesn't verify the information) Add information (sourced to concerns about the FRM) to the text, and then we can discuss the lead.--Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slp1: Can you please give me an example of a source that definitively speaks for the FRM as if it were single entity - a group that has no organization in the US, no charter, no statement of purpose, no President or other leadership?? The FRM is not an organization like NOW. Please help me understand what you are looking for.

Thanks. PTiger1985 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP summarizes what reliable sources say. There are newspaper articles, scholarly articles and books about the FRM and their concerns. Use them. They may well be concerned about alimony issues. But you need to find a reliable source first and not just add information without one. --Slp1 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, Thanks. I will work on it. I encourage others to help. I still believe that the burden of "excessive/punative child support" and excessive alimony are EXACTLY the same. In the US, the ratio of child support and alimony are determined by tax issues. The impact on fathers and their ability to spend more time with children is exactly the same as well. These often overwhelming financial burdens prevent fathers for modifying their careers in such a way that they can accomodate a shared custody plan or spend more time with their children in general.

PTiger1985 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I cannot emphasize enough that what you believe is irrelevant here. This seems to be the big problem with your edits. You seem to want the WP articles to reflect your opinion/belief/research. This is not what we do here. We summarize what the best and highest quality sources that we can find. Start with them. Not your belief about what is right/true. --Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on Fathers' Right Movement=

Reading the sources in this article appears that the Fathers' rights movement is strongest in the UK and the US. Is this generally true?

Also, can anybody tell me if Alimony a consequence of divorce in ADDITION to CHILD SUPPORT anywhere outside the US - especially in the UK?

PTiger1985 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Blog sites

Blog sites soliciting participation in an activist action such as this one [35] is a thoroughly inappropriate citation for Wikipedia. If thisre is a notable/significant campaign, find a reliable independent source mentioning it. This edit [36] of Michael H34 also introduced non-verifiable material and original research. None of the citations given support the view that FRG's groups work toward "an end to parental alienation"--Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In my most recent edit, I addressed the concern about the phrase "end to parental alienation." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Quotation Requested

Did the authors cited say that "approximately 15%" of the fathers' rights movement are women or did they report the results of their studies? Michael H 34 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Once a group’s leader agreed to be interviewed, I requested permission to ask for members to participate. Using this snowball sampling technique, I was able to secure a total of 158 interviews, of which 23 were with women."

What is the conclusion of the author? Michael H 34 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

We've been through this before. As has already been pointed out we have two scholarly empirical studies, both of which found approximately 15% membership by women. One summarizes the finding by saying that women "occasionally" join the FRM. The other concludes that it is made up "mostly" of men.[37] Since I suspect your goal here is remove this figure (as it is contrary to a central talking point of the FRM), I will ask you, do you have any empirical studies to offer that would contradict this finding? If you do, let's have the citations. --Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the quote. Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I gave you the first six months ago in June 2009.[38]. A link to an accessible Crowley reference was given in February 2009 [39] and in another version above on page 113. Please review previous posts instead of asking for information already given to you.--Slp1 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not able to open the link. Please provide the quote. Thank you ! Michael H 34 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Which link are you having trouble with? --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having access problems. If you can copy and paste the quote that would be great. Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
What are you having trouble accessing? Please specify. --Slp1 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Please provide the quote to support the statement that you added to the article. I am not able to find it. Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Two independent empirical studies have found female membership in the FRM at approximately 15%. If you have other empirical studies with different findings, please produce them. You are welcome to check the studies and their findings and conclusions; I've given you multiple links to help you do this. If you actually specify what you've been having trouble accessing I will be happy to help. Otherwise, I'm done here. --Slp1 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is a member of the FRM is a matter of opinion

What happened to the statement supported by Parke and Brott that FRGs report that 30-50% of the phone calls they receive are from women? Michael H 34 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

We've been through this before too. Please review [40]. In short, an unsourced factoid quoted from popular, polemic book about who calls FR groups says nothing of value about the demographics of the FRM. If I call the Boy Scouts does that make me a member? Of course not. There was, and is, I suspect, no consensus for the issue of this -.-Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't call the boy scouts, do you?
The demographics of the FRM are a matter of opinion, and you have decided that you would prefer not to represent all significant viewpoints. Sacks and Thompson stated that half of the members of the FRM are women. David Levy has stated that 40% of the members of the Children's Rights Council are women. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
I'll ignore the pointless strawman about the Boy Scouts. In June, independent commentators at the RSN as well as editors here determined that Sacks and Thompson opinion column is an inappropriate source for such facts, but you can't seem to let it go, unfortunately. And no, the demographics of the FRM is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of empirical research and has been specifically been studied by several scholarly sources,[41][42][43]. It appears that you personally would prefer to trust the talking points of fathers' rights advocates, but WP does not. I'm also intrigued that you would claim that it is somehow relevant that 40% the members of the Children's Rights Council are women, when the CRC denies that they are a men's group at all. Interestingly, however, scholarly sources do suggest that they are exactly what you seem to imply.[44][45][46]. Can you provide the citation for the 40% claim? I'd like to see it.--Slp1 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Orange Coast Magazine - March 1997 - Article about Second Wives Clubs - [47] Michael H 34 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you. A 12-year-old Orange Coast Magazine is hardly the height of scholarly research when compared to the empirical studies cited above, especially as, unbelievably really, Levy's quote is being given as an example of precisely the FRM talking point I mentioned above; that the FRM seeks to emphasize the number of women in their groups, and rename their groups to obscure their focus. "....Across the nation, groups lobbying for fathers' rights increasingly have begun calling themselves "children's rights" groups and pointing to the percentage of women on their membership roles[sic]. David Levy, for example, president of the Washington D.C. based Children's Rights Council notes that 40% of his group's members are women." Given the age and status of the article, and the muddy, limited, context this is not a useful source of anything in particular. --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This argument has been dealt with already Michael. Wikipedia uses mainstream reliable academic sources - see the above linked RSN discussion as well as WP:RS or the Homeopathy ArbCom decision. We don't give equal weight to sources that don't merit that weight--Cailil talk 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether a source merits weight is a matter of opinion. The Orange County Magazine source was brought up for discussion purposes only. It is the Glenn Sacks/Dianna Thompson source that was improperly rejected. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
Just on a point of order Michael weight is not based on opinion it's based on citation and reliablity. If a source if widely used in academic or other peer-reviewed work then it deserves more weight than one that is not. This is explained at WP:DUE--Cailil talk 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. We've requested an opinion and it came down against you. The Sacks/Thompson source was reviewed and rejected. There's no reason to bring it up again except personal preference for the information - which comes down to POV-pushing in the face of reliable sources. This issue has been closed for months and continuing to bring it up is axe-grinding and could easily result in a block or ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes for a possible request for comment

(1) With respect to this article, the "mainstream academic sources" are biased. For this article, "mainstream reliable academic sources" are not the only acceptable sources.

Without a source for that statement, you are wasting your time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(2) Who is a member of the FRM is a matter of opinion. For example, one could take the view that anyone who supports a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting is a member of the fathers' rights movement. Significantly, Jocelyn Elise Crowley, Professor of Women's Studies at Rutgers University, views the Children's Rights Council is a fathers' rights group. Most likely, this is because the Children's Rights Council supports the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. In Massachusetts, 85% of voters supported a non-binding referendum for the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. No doubt that more than 15% of those in favor were women. Others could take the view that you have to attend all meetings, or that you have to sign up somewhere. This view would depend on the existence of a sign-up sheet. Significantly, Ms. Crowley's 15% result for 158 people interviewed is based on this view.

Stating who is a member of the FRM should be based on reliable sources. We shouldn't "take a view", we should cite sources that verify that X person is a FRM member. You've got a bunch of original research suppositions here, nothing at all that could ever be used in the page itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
An opinion about the deomgraphics of the FRM was removed based on the false notion that the opinion should not matter or that what you incorrectly represent as facts can override a significant, verifiable opinion published by a reliable source.
If a person is an Executive Director (Glenn Sacks) or former President (Stephen Baskerville) of a fathers' rights group then they are clearly members of the fathers' rights movement. Similarly, if a person attends meetings or registers as a member then they are clearly.... There are other people who may or may not be members, and they may include people who phone a fathers' rights group. Who should be included is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

(3) I'm still trying to find out what Ms. Crowley stated about this 15% result, and whether or not of the "members of the fathers' rights movement..." "...approximately 15% are women" is the conclusion of the author or the result of original research.

Please provide the quote! Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

(4) "Women make up half of the fathers' rights movement" is a reliably sourced statement from Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson. It is based on their view. Slp1 was able to reject this source based on the idea that the article was the opinion of the authors. No doubt that the article was the opinion of the authors. However, there was a failure of those who supported the rejection of the reliably sourced statement to appreciate that who is a member of the fathers' rights movement IS a matter of opinion.

We've beaten this to death - Sacks and Thompson are not reliable sources and an editorial is not a reliable venue. Slp1 did not reject this, it was discussed ad nauseum here, and then taken to a RSN posting, where it was soundly rejected. This decision is the result of following the appropriate process, and portraying it as the idle reaction of a single editor ignores our policies, the external input, and substantial discussions detailing why the source and claim is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is a reliable source for their opinion. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
And their opinion is biased, uninformed, and contradicted by better sources. We might be able to source their opinion about the FRM in general, but certainly not a factual statement about their membership. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
WLU's rationale for excluding the opinion of Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Verifability has taken a back seat to truth (as WLU and Slp1 see it) and this is contrary to Wikipedia Policy. In a matter of opinion, he has elevated one source over another.
In addition, who did the extrapolation from 15% of 158 interviewed subjects to 15% of the fathers' rights movement? Where's the quote? Please provide the quote. Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

(5) Parke and Brott provided a reliably sourced statement that "fathers' rights groups report that 30-50% of the phone calls they receive are from women." This statement was rejected based on the idea that who calls FRGs are not indicative of who is a member. As an example, Slp1 stated that if she called the Boy Scouts, this does not mean she is a member. It does not mean she is NOT a member however. In fact, Slp1 did not say that she called the Boy Scouts. She did not have a reason to call because she is not a member. So, why do "fathers' rights groups report that 30-50% of the phone calls they receive are from women?", and why did Parke and Brott report this?

And we've been over this as well. If I order a pizza, I don't belong to the Pizza Hut Corporation. How anyone can possibly compare this to an actual scholarly source is beyond me. It combines original research with POV-pushing and unreliable sources. That's a trifecta of content policies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The analogy represents your point of view. This is the point. Who is a member varies depending on point of view. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

(5) A significant reliable and verifiable viewpoint was eliminated from the article contrary to Wikipedia policy. The percentage of women in the fathers' rights movement is a matter of opinion; it is not a matter of fact. Regardless, a scholar's fact/opinion cannot eliminate the reliably sourced and verifiable significant viewpoint. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Scholarly articles are not mere opinion (unlike an editorial piece by a known cultural partisan). The editorial shouldn't be cited in the first place and can't be used to debunk or refute a scholarly article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The scholarly articles communicates the opinion of the author. What did the author conclude? Please, where is the quote from the author? The representation of scholarly opinion as fact is a POV that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
"The representation of scholarly opinion as fact is a POV that is contrary to Wikipedia policy."[citation needed] Quite apart from the fact that we are not talking about scholarly opinion, but about uncontradicted empirical research.--Slp1 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Verifiability has been set aside because in a matter of opinion, one source is being viewed as "better" than another. In addition, the guideline calling for no original research may also have been set aside. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Just because Slp1 can call something empirical research does not make it devoid of opinion. If the author states that 15% of the interviewed subjects were women, that could be viewed as a fact. If the author extrapolates and concludes that 15% of the members of the fathers' rights movement are women then the conclusion is the opinion of the author. Did the author state this opinion or is it the interpretation of a Wikipedia editor based on data published by the scholar? Please provide the quote that provides the basis for the edit "approximately 15% are women." Thank you! Michael H 34 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
You know what, this is getting nowhere fast, and responding seems pointless. The same issues has been discussed for almost a year now, with a clear view given at RSN and unanimous disagreement from editors here and there with Michael H's view of policy, proposed sources, etc.
I have done my best to provide quotations and sources [48] , but to no avail since he refused to indicate what he was having trouble accesssing. I have now made a clarifying edit [49] which hopefully will satisfy M's concerns about the 15% number.
If it doesn't, and/or if Michael wants to pursue including facts from the opinion column etc, then please organize a real RFC. I won't be posting further on these matters until/if this happens, but please don't assume that my silence implies consent.--Slp1 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"The sample was a snowball sample. However, care was taken to interview members at various levels of activity and responsibility within the groups (i.e., executive, active members, and casual members) and because 15% of the membership in some of these organizations is composed of women (i.e., second wives, dating partners, and mothers without custody), four women members were interviewed." This is in a peer-reviewed journal specifically researching the FRM. On the other hand, we have a polemical writer, with a known bias towards the FRM, who wrote an editorial on the subject, claiming a contradictory figure. In my mind, Bertoia and Drakich is clearly a superior source to an opinion piece in a newspaper. Slp1's clarifying edit completely addresses this point and I think this can rest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quote from Bertoia and Drakich. I gather that they interviewed about 27 people. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

No, Bertoia interviewed 32 people as part of the larger study. In the larger study, multiple FRGs were observed using participant observation and document analysis over an 18 month period; it is from this that the 15% figure is derived. --Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael you must stop it.This [50]] removed sourced information from scholarly sources about fathers rights emphasizing female membership, a fact that your own Orange Coast Magazine reference above supports.[51] It modified a sentence to "Approximately 15 percent of members interviewed in two North American surveys were women", a misrepresentation of the fact that 15% interviewed because of the demographics of the groups, as I have explained above. I'll add back the mothers custody, since I realize now you added Bertoia as a reference. --Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that not all of the respondents were interviewed. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid. There were no 'respondents' per se in the B and D study. Their study was composed to two parts: 1. observation and analysis of multiple FRGs, 2. indepth and interviews with some members of the groups. Because the larger observation etc had noted that about 15% of the groups were made up of women, when it came to the interview portion of the study, they made sure to interview 4 women out a total of 32 interviews, so as to be representative of the composition of the groups. Does that help you understand? BTW you really shouldn't be editing sentences when you haven't read the sources. --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I now understand that not all of those "surveyed" were "respondents" to the survey. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, but you continue to add unverifiable, inaccurate information, because you are editing sentences without reading the studies themselves. People weren't surveyed. They were observed, and gender is not to difficult to observe accurately, I imagine. A survey has several meanings; one is a kind of study, a broad examination of something; it doesn't necessarily imply that people were "surveyed", by filling out surveys etc, and for the purpose of determining the 15% in this case, they weren't. I used it only as a change from study, but <sigh> I guess clarity is better. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit is accurate. Surveyed was used as a verb. Surveys as in "filling out surveys" is a noun.
In addition, while not as egregious as your prior edit: "15% of the fathers' rights movement are women", your current edit is still original research unless supported by a quote.
Please note that there is a broader definition of member of the fathers' rights movement that does not require a person to be a member of a fathers' rights group. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Michael, this has to stop. The flaws in your edits are continuous, consistent, ignore external input, gives undue prominence to biased, unreliable sources, and you know this. Continue this and I will request a topic ban. Attempting to assert that popular publications and editorials by known advocates in newspapers can not compete with scholarly publications. My patience is at an end. Per advice on my talk page, I've struck through my comment. I do not appreciate having to go over the same ground repeatedly - sources are the best way to build the page, and reliable sources take precedence over unreliable ones. In this case, the editorial has clearly been seen as unreliable for this information while contradicting an actually reliable one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed this last week and I was left wondering if I slid this part of the page overtop of the July discussion above, whether the text would exactly match except for the dates. Talk about covering the same ground. Now I see more editing on the same topic today. While it's good of WLU to have struck through their comment above, if this is all going to start up yet again, something will likely need to be done. Too much time is going into the explanations and MH34 needs to put more effort into understanding them. That's my outside view anyway. Franamax (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Slp1, please provide a quote to support your edit, thank you. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

You've been given or pointed to sources and quotes multiple times. I'm not repeating the effort, because it doesn't seem to make a bit of difference. More importantly, your edits ignore the clear consensus of other editors on this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What was this if not a reply to the request for a quote? You have the quote, but apparently don't like it. That's not a reason to revert or continue arguing the same points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
"The sample was a snowball sample. However, care was taken to interview members at various levels of activity and responsibility within the groups (i.e., executive, active members, and casual members) and because 15% of the membership in some of these organizations is composed of women (i.e., second wives, dating partners, and mothers without custody), four women members were interviewed."

This is the quote? Are there any others?

"15% of the membership in some of these organizations"

The authors did not make a conclusion. They interviewed a fraction of the members surveyed and they're explaining why they interviewed 4 women. Some of these organizations refers to some of the organizations surveyed by the authors. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's the original edit:
Women, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law are also members of the fathers' rights movement, making up approximately 15 per cent of the membership,[4][17] a fact that the groups take pains to emphasize.[3][20]
I asked for a quote, and eventually it was recognized that the above statement was not supported by a quote, and so it was changed to the following:
Women composed approximately 15 per cent of fathers' rights groups in two North American studies.[4][17]
The quote is a phrase from a sentence in which the authors are explaining why they interviewed 4 women. Here's the phrase:
"15% of the membership in some of these organizations is composed of women"

The original research is still apparent. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's my edit that prompted WLU to threaten to initiate a topic ban:
In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of the members surveyed were women.[4][17]
Perhaps this would be better: "In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of the members of some of the groups surveyed were women.
Based on my most recent edit, the sentence reads as follows:
Women composed approximately 15 percent of some of the fathers' rights groups in two North American studies.[4][17] Michael H 34 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
This edit was undone by Slp1 to remove "some of the" from the sentence. In her edit comment she stated that [these words were] "unverifiable."

Slp1, could you provide a quote to support this edit? Thank you. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's the quote that supports the inclusion of the words "some of the":

"The sample was a snowball sample. However, care was taken to interview members at various levels of activity and responsibility within the groups (i.e., executive, active members, and casual members) and because 15% of the membership in some of these organizations is composed of women (i.e., second wives, dating partners, and mothers without custody), four women members were interviewed." Michael H 34 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please note that "quotes" are not the only way that material gets verified in this encyclopedia. When I helped write Learned Hand for example, some sentences had to summarize several pages of text. It is not always necessary, desirable or possible to have a sentence by sentence citation approach which you appear to want. In this case, you are ignoring several pages of Crowley, which is also referenced. I have indicated several times that you shouldn't be continually editing and especially reverting sentences when you have not actually read the articles/books concerned. As it happens, Crowley indicates "Demographic Characteristics of Father's Rights Members.... Gender: Male 85% Female 15%" p. 45". The word "approximately" is used instead of "some" because, yes, only some of Bertoia and Drakich's groups had as many as 15% (as is obvious from the context.) --Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note - it is not because of a single edit that I think a topic ban would be an outcome. This is certainly a representative example of what I consider problematic with MichaelH 34's editing, but it's far from the sole, isolated incident or page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"As it happens, Crowley indicates "Demographic Characteristics of Father's Rights Members.... Gender: Male 85% Female 15%" p. 45"."

This statistice was used to support the following sentence?

Women, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law are also members of the fathers' rights movement, making up approximately 15 per cent of the membership,[4][17] a fact that the groups take pains to emphasize.[3][20]
Are the statistics cited above the informed conclusion by the author about all members of the fathers' rights movement, or is it a statement of her findings after interviewing 158 people reported as participants in some fathers' rights groups?
"some" because, yes, only some of Bertoia and Drakich's groups had as many as 15% (as is obvious from the context.)
Your inference from the context is not obvious to me. Crowley stated that the Children's Rights Council is a fathers' rights group, and its leader once stated that 40% of its members were women. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Yes, the two peer-reviewed empirical studies known have found the membership of women in the FRM to be at or about 15%. They are used to cite the sentence "Women composed approximately 15 per cent of fathers' rights groups in two North American studies", which I agree is better than the older sentence you quote above. Do you have any different sources of equal or better quality to offer? Claims by an activist (that are specifically identified as a FR talking point by journalist quoting them!)[52] do not make the grade. But I said more or less exactly this two weeks ago, [53][54] and we are still going around and around in circles. --Slp1 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, the two peer-reviewed empirical studies known have found the membership of women in the FRM to be at or about 15%."

I assert, based on the lack of a supporting quote from any of the authors involved and on the fact that you did not address my question above, that this your conclusion, and not the conclusion of the authors. Did the authors conclude that 15% of the members of fathers' rights groups studied - surveyed or observed - were women?

This is why I assert that your sentence, while much less egregious than your prior sentence, is still original research. My edit does not put words in the authors mouths, and does not interpret the study. Here's my edit:

In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of the members surveyed were women.[4][17]

Why is this phrasing unacceptable to you? If the verb, surveyed, is unacceptable to you, then it can be easily changed.

Furthermore, members of the fathers' rights movement are not necessarily participants in fathers' rights groups. Your edits have blended these terms without an appreciation for this distinction. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

If you want their conclusions, see this post [55], made at the end of December, and linked to in my post directly above. But I suspect their conclusions, that women occasionally join groups, for example, wouldn't be an improvement from your perspective. But in any case here we are not quoting their conclusions but their remarkably consistent (and apparently uncontradicted) findings. The text "Women composed approximately 15 per cent of fathers' rights groups in two North American studies" specifies that the studies are geographically and numerically limited, and that it refers to the membership composition of fathers' rights groups rather than the movement at large. However, I would be happy with "In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of members were women," though it is clumsier than the original in my view. The modifying participle "surveyed" is neither necessary nor accurate, and also seeks to imply with a weasel word that "if they had just surveyed some other people/groups they would have got a different result". That may be true, but it is purely editorial speculation unless you have other independent studies which give different figures. --Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of the members were recorded as being women. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Do you have any evidence that any men or women were "unrecorded" in the study? It's just another weasel word to cast doubt on the findings. --Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to find a word that you would find less objectionable than surveyed. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
"In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of members were women."

Yes, that is better than the prior two edits. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Late update: I'm at a bit of a loss to see any significant difference between "In two North American studies of fathers' rights groups, approximately 15 percent of members were women" and what it replaced "Women composed approximately 15 per cent of fathers' rights groups in two North American studies". But I am glad Michael does and there can be an end to this.--Slp1 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fathers' rights groups

Given the substantial duplication between this page and Fathers' rights movement, it appears to be a content fork, and an unnecessary one at that. Either the content should be substantially reworked to make it different, the FRM should be shortened to a summary, listified and turned into a simple page documenting which groups claim to belong to the FRM (with references), or redirected to the FRM page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the content fork issue. I fear that this is an attempt to divest apparently uncomfortable information about demographics from the Fathers' rights movement page. There is also a copyright problems since it has been copied without attribution within WP, (see WP:SPLIT for details), though that is easily solved if this is not redirected back to the FRM page, as I believe it should be. --Slp1 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Page and talk page redirected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Fathers' rights groups do not comprise the fathers' rights movement. Although the fathers' rights groups article is currently a subset of the fathers' rights movement article, I expect that the two articles will diverge over time. In my view, fathers' rights groups should be a separate article, and the fathers' rights movement article can link to it. In my view, it is improper to equate fathers' rights groups with the fathers' rights movement. In my view, there is no risk of content fork or coatrack since the two articles are not the same even if one may be viewed as a subset of the other. If you believe that the fathers' rights groups article should include a list of fathers' rights groups, please feel free to add and edit content. I ask you to please undo the redirect. Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
In my view, FRGs can be its own article and the FRM can refer to it. In my view, it is improper to equate the FRM with FRGs. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
I disagree with the redirect from Fathers' rights groups to Fathers' rights movement.Michael H 34 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
The following statement was posted by Slp1 above. In my view, this statement indicates that there is the potential for people and editors to improperly equate the fathers' rights movement with fathers' rights groups. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Slp1: "Yes, the two peer-reviewed empirical studies known have found the membership of women in the FRM to be at or about 15%." Michael H 34: (The empirical studies evaluated FRGs not the FRM.) Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
The page does not currently say that, so that's not a concern.
Regarding changing over time - that may be true, but at the time of the redirect, the page was a content fork because at the time it was a near verbatim duplication of the section. Don't create a content fork so it can later change, use a sub-page for that, then move it into mainspace. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael, in your post above you use the phrase "in my view" four times. This is exactly the problem that we have faced here for so long. Your view is interesting up to a point, but is not relevant when it comes to making decisions about the editing of content. In this case, do you have any evidence that FR groups are different from the FRM movement? That they diverge in any significant way from the wider movement, apart from the fact that they have physical meetings? Do you have any published sources to add showing that there is any "improper equat[ing] of "fathers' rights movement with fathers' rights groups"? Or is this just your opinion? In fact the evidence seems to be precisely the opposite; the scholarly sources do not differentiate between the movement and the groups, using terms such as "movement, groups, activists, proponents, advocates, members, lobby" within the same page, section or even paragraph.(see this [56] and this [57] as examples.
Unfortunately, the posts above ("improperly equating", "diverge over time", "can link to it") only serve to confirm my concerns that your motivation with the other article was rid this article of scholarly information about the membership of the movement that you don't like. I apologize if I confused the issue on the talkpage (and originally in the article) by using the term "movement". As I have shown, in this regard I follow in the footsteps of others who generally use the terms interchangeably. In the article itself, it was actually my edit (on January 5th, more than 3 weeks ago) that specified that two studies examined "groups" rather than the movement as a whole, and that specificity hasn't been removed since.[58]. --Slp1 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I strongly believe there is merit to having a list of fathers' rights groups page, I just as strongly believe that the former page was not such a list, and would not end up as one. The movement is made up of groups and individuals. It makes sense to use "movement" when it's about the whole social phenomenon, it makes sense to use "groups" or specific names of groups when the information is about a specific subset. The reasonable and appropriate separation is a page on which the movement as a whole is discussed (which references specific groups) and a second page which deals with specific groups only and does not address broad strokes. It shouldn't be addressed by attempting to have two pages which makes broad generalizations about what essentially comes down to the same thing. Anyway, this is obviously going to continue to be a head-banging-against-a-brick-wall issue, I've said my peace on this particular issue and I think I'm done. If I change my mind I'll let y'all know, but right now I think there's no merit to continuing the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a some of what you state above. Why does this article include information about the demographics of [some of the] groups as being representative of the demographics of the fathers' rights movement (the title of the article)? Michael H 34 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Because Fathers rights groups are an integral and prominent part of Fathers rights movement. In fact, as I have pointed out above, most reliable sources use the term FR groups/movement/advocates/activists interchangeably. Information about the demographics of these groups is obviously relevant and informative to the article. I'll also point out that the sentence "Fathers' rights groups in the West are primarily composed of white, middle or working class, heterosexual men" is likely too narrowly specified based on the sources. Gavanas uses the term "advocates" [59], Messner the term "activists" [60] --Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Slp1. In my opinion, it is not valid or proper to confuse terms that relate to different things. The fathers' rights movement is not the same thing as fathers' rights groups even if some sources seemed to use the terms interchangeably. A prior statement about Darren Mack was once used to generalize about the movement, and statements about fathers' rights groups should not be used to generalize about the movement either. I agree with WLU. If the articles are not split, then the terms should be used carefully. I suggest that if this article includes a section about demographics, then the title of the section should be demographics of fathers' rights groups. I also note that the article on the Feminist movement does not include a section on demographics. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
Once again, while your opinion is interesting, editors here need to provide reliable sources for their proposed edits. I have previously provided clear evidence that academic sources do not make the clear distinction between "groups" and "movement" that you wish to. If reliable sources supported your view then you would have a point. But they don't. Having said that, we do need to be sure we reflect sources faithfully, and so if the material in the demographics section was only about father's rights groups rather than the movement at large (which includes groups, of course), then you would have a point about renaming it "demographics of fathers' rights groups". But it isn't, as I have also already shown above. It would simply be unverifiable to rename it as you propose. And what happens in other articles is irrelevant here. Multiple scholarly sources have written about the demographics of the FR movement, and we need to summarize them in this encyclopedia. If you want to add a reliably sourced section to the feminist movement do go ahead.
I'll be blunt. Sources and policy simply do not support this ongoing campaign to marginalize/remove material about the demographics of the FRM that you do not like. Please either find some reliable sources to support your views or let it go. --Slp1 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Right now we don't have information on the movement, we have information on the groups; that's a proxy until we can find information on the movement. We don't portray the movement as groups or vice-versa, and even if we did, I don't think it's a big deal and certainly wouldn't warrant a disclaimer (i.e. "...but this applies only to groups, not to the movement as a whole"). Want to include something different? Get a source. You may disagree, but without a reliable source you're simply expressing your own opinion. In what sentence is a source mis-used to identify the movement when it should say group, or vice-versa? And I don't think the page needs to change based on your argument nor does there need to be a page about "groups" - do you agree with that? It's empty talk and 'agreement' on the talk page if you aren't advocating for a change, and if you really substantively agree with me, then you should stop talking because I don't see a need to adjust the main page. I on the other hand, agree with the overall message of Slp1, not just the cherry-picked parts I like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the fathers' rights movement, not fathers' rights groups. You have used the demographic results of two small studies of fathers' rights groups and applied them to the fathers' rights movement. This is not proper.

By the way, the children's rights' movement does not have a section on demographics either.

Here's more information about the distinction between the fathers' rights movement and fathers' rights groups:

[61]

A few comments on the Fox piece:
1) Fox misidentifies Fathers & Families as a "fathers' rights group." We are, in fact, a family court reform organization. As Holstein is fond of saying, F & F isn't asking for anything for fathers that we don't also want to ensure for mothers: protection for the parent-child bond; both parents sharing roughly equal physical time with their children; both parents treated fairly financially; the abused protected from abuse and the innocent protected from false allegations of abuse; and similar principles. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
I can't believe we are still going over this ground, and you are continuing to argue that this scholarly information about FR demographics is improper. You are right that FRM != FRGs. Maybe this Venn diagram] will help. For "Bases" read the "Fathers' Rights Movement"; for "Alkalis" read "Fathers' rights groups". FR Groups are a well-studied subset of the movement, and indeed as I have shown above, the terms movement/groups are often used interchangeably by academics. In any case, well-documented information about the demographics of groups is entirely relevant and has not been generalized to the FRM as a whole.
As you know, blogs are not reliable sources, but I'm entirely unsurprised that the leadership of Fathers and Families try to distance their group from the "Fathers' rights" label. After all, the so-called "Children's rights" groups do the same.[62][63][64][65][66] However, multiple scholarly and media sources (as well as numerous weblists of FR groups that I haven't listed) view Fathers and Families as a FR group.[67][68][69][70]. It's the external evaluation that counts, just as we call David Irving a holocaust denier despite his denials. --Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fathers' Rights, family law information link

The site for the Family Law Gazette, at www.familylawgazette.com, has some provocative postings related to family law policy. It might be useful to include it in the external links section.

66.158.8.42 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Hank

It sounds impressive, but the Family Law Gazette is actually a non-notable personal blog as far as I can see. As such it doesn't meet the grade for external links.--Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Baskerville

It appears that Stephen Baskerville has been an important leader in this movement. However, this article currently reads like a press release for Professor Baskerville, with lots of citations that result in circular references back to the article. I'd like to clean things up in a respectful manner that gives Baskerville credit, but which makes the language more encyclopedic. I'd also like to fix the references. However, since I am the new kid on this block, I want to make sure I get editor consensus before I proceed. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ebikeguy. I couldn't agree with you more. I made a similar point about 18 months ago, but haven't been able to get up the strength to do anything about it given the time sink of the squabbling you can see above. As you can see here when we discussed it before, my thinking is that we actually may need to do a fairly major rewrite of those sections where Baskerville is quoted endlessly. Per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc we should focus on what secondary sources say about the FRM and their issues, rather picking out issues from a primary source - a book by FR activist such as Baskerville - as a sole source for "what FR issues" are. If his views are the views of the FRM it should be easy to find confirmation, as there's plenty of scholarly articles and books out there, as well as newspaper articles about the movement. I can send you electronic copies if you like. There's also other areas where the sourcing could be be improved too, in my view, and I'd be happy to work with you on this. --Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Slp1. I got caught up in the whole Rich Zubaty debate and forgot about this for a while. I've got a crazy couple weeks coming up, but I will try to look at this again ASAP. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you see that Zubaty has got a podcast up which mentions the whole ghastly episode? Here's the text version. [71] Apparently you, as a delete-voter, are from Australia or New Zealand. Did you know that? ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Poor guy, so cruelly oppressed by the manholes of the world, not to mention those lesbian harpies. In any case, I heard that New Zealand was recently ranked as one of the most peaceful places to live on the planet, so if Zubaty has conferred NZ citizenship on me, and it sticks, I say "Woohoo!" Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. NZ is place to aspire to. It's amazingly beautiful and different. A great place to bike, I would think, though I've mostly hiked (or tramped, as they call it). --Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Foster care

In common parlance, children are "placed in foster care" (1.4 million google hits [72]); they are very rarely "assigned to foster care"(2,880 hits [73]). Given the huge difference in usage it is ludicrous to suggest that "placed in" is POV as has been suggested. Indeed, it is interesting to see many of the "assigned to foster care" usages refer to controlled studies in which researchers randomly assigned children to various care settings, not even the context here. I would argue these edits represent yet another (semi) subtle attempt of Michael H to push his point of view about how big, bad government is destroying families and assigning children to foster care as if in some giant experiment (see this edit [74]). Michael H, if you still wish to dispute this point, please provide some concrete evidence about why this highly unusual formulation is to be preferred. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors of the main article on foster care seem to agree with Slp1. The lead sentence in the lead paragraph reads, "Foster care is the term used for a system in which a minor who has been made a ward is PLACED in the private home of a state certified caregiver referred to as a 'foster parent.'" Ebikeguy (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the FRM article

I get the strong impression the FRM article is biased and doesn't have a neutral point of view. It seems like most paragraphs have a comment or citation from someone opposed to the FRM. Good examples are the "political and social views" section, and "Beliefs and Activities". More than half the paragraphs are peppered with attacks or comments about associations with violence and disorderly conduct (which is based on the actions of a few individuals that claim membership in the group). Honestly, in the "Demographics - Political and social view" section, do you really think it's appropriate to start a paragraph about transcending gender roles with "The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society", for example? This statement is used deceptively. It's source is an article in the Guardian that mentions that the idea was speculated in a book by Susan Faludi. Ultimately, when you track the statement down through these sources, it is purely the speculation of a Ms. Faladi. This is preposterously non-neutral editing. Every section contains mentions of the FRM's ideas followed by criticism and attacks, many of which are tenuous and from sources of dubious credibility. Another example is the section "Shared parenting" with the comment "Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children". Who on earth considers this scholarly? I can find feminist authors that assert that any heterosexual sex between men and women is sexual assault (Andrea Dworkin) or that maleness is a birth-defect comparable to blindness, that men are a 'biological accident' and the male sex should be destroyed (Valerie Solanas). In any other article, most of these criticisms would be included toward the end of the article in a seperate "Criticism" section, instead of being used to undermine the fair presentation of FRM's position in almost every paragraph. -CS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.133.232 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow.. yeah I see what you're saying (5 months later it's still that way.) Every section is an attack on the FRM. This should be consolidated into a criticism section. As it stands today this article is a coatrack for criticisms of the FRM rather than an article on it. I'll work to restructure this.--Cybermud (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted Cybermud's restructuring; Criticism sections are deprecated per WP:NPOV. If there the stances of the FRM are critiqued by significant sources (and there are) then this needs to be included in context, not lumped together at the end. I agree that the article needs a lot of work, but the problems are more related to the use of less than stellar sources rather than the secondary sources that are out there about the movement. Slp1 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is a crystal clear case of an attack piece, the bias is quite incredible and it is rather worrying it has been that way for so long. There appears to be a constant theme of focusing on the more extreme elements of father's rights activists and with the implication being that their conduct/opinions are the norm. Similarly there's an absence of positive and complimentary material. The section on demographics is terrible too, no mention of the involvement of grandparents not to mention children and certainly no one reading the piece would even considered it possible that the second most successful Fathers 4 Justice group was lead by a woman--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Other issues are the lack of statistics in the piece. E.g. there's the obsession in statistics in the demographics, but an absence of the types of statistics showing all the discrimination against fathers in society that any father's rights group would base their work and arguments on. The focus on Australia in the opening paragraph is objectionable too - such a small country in terms of population and not with the most successful Fathers Rights movement yet it's the only example shown and the obvious implication is that all Father's Rights Activists are selfish and refuse to help others.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"As others have highlighted the "beliefs and activities" section is problematic. One conviction for stalking in one small country but an unknown movement is not at all notable. The only pattern of events in relation to criminal law would be the trend of protesters being put on trial for their protests, with the trend almost always being toward their acquittal and sometimes the payment of compensation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Another problem is the liberal v conservative aspect of the section. `The whole section seems to be an either OR argument. It's along the lines of "either you believe men and women are the same and you believe in equality" OR "you are a conservative". In reality a lot of nature v nuture arguments/theories tend to the extent of both and many people would surely agree that both nature AND nurture play important roles, it's not a black and white case of one or the other. Also, anyone accepting of the differences between men and women isn't somehow against equality as the passage also suggests, it's perfectly possible and widespread to accept differences and be in favour of equality.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond in detail with the bulk of these comments at present, but will briefly note that Shakehandsman's edits have consistently shown POV problems with regards to gender issues, and therefore I take any complaints with a pinch of salt. In addition the bulk of the above comments show that the sources given have not been consulted before making the complaints. Editors may not agree with liberal/conservative distinction, for example, but that's how it is presented in the sources, and an editor's original research about what is "perfectly possible" is irrelevant. The information about the short-lived nature of groups comes from articles written about the FRM in the UK and Australia, and other sources make similar points about other countries. As I said, I have long agreed that there is work to do here, but focus needs to be on finding high quality scholarly articles about the movement and summarizing them fairly. If grandparents are to be mentioned, they need to mentioned prominently in the sources about FR demographics. If there is a trend that FR activists are unfairly charged and are often given compensation, we need to find articles about the FRM that make that point. I've read fairly widely on the topic and don't believe that this is the case. The key to WP:NPOV is to fairly represent what is written in the highest quality sources available. That means starting with the sources, per WP:V, not any preconceived notion about what the article should look like. A good deal of what Shakehandsman complains about is cited to scholarly, academic books about the topic, just the sort of sources that should be form the basis of the article content. --Slp1 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's quite laughable you should accuse me of POV editing when it appears you're spent considerable time contributing to what is quite clearly an attack piece. I haven't looked at the detailed history to see who has added such ridiculous material so I'm not making accusations in that regard and perhaps it was even worse before you edits, but it really is very troubling that you haven't spotted such terrible bias in this article. Take my views with a pinch of salt if you want, but they're exactly the same as everyone else's here so you'll just be burying your head in the sand. In terms of a trend of acquittals, the fact is the article only cites one single conviction of an unknown group, in a country with a small population for stalking, therefore it only takes two acquittals to blow that out of the water and I really don't think we should be covering random regional unknown groups anyway unless they are notable. I've read about a good few compensation payments, though the media tend to ignore those as they occur long after the events. It's certainly easy to find acquittals though (and of very high profile groups at that). Also, just because material is cited doesn't change the fact that this is an attack piece, it's just an attack piece with sources--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just Googled this blackshirts group and they don't even appear to exist now, whereas other groups have been around for 30 years and their existence isn't even hinted at in the article. It's ridiculous.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
here are some high profile acquittals showing protests to be peaceful and legitimate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7024846.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715273.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6049588.stm
The key point is that a conviction for an offence such as stalking/violence is clearly very rare indeed due to the peaceful nature of the groups. That's not to say there aren't guilty verdicts out there for non violent offences, but even as those go this one is entirely unrepresentative. Why not mention the father jailed for standing outside his house and waving at his children as that's a more significant sentence? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464132/Jailed-waving-daughter.html

Outdent I have restored my edits. Criticism sections may be deprecated per NPOV though with a quick glance at the policy I couldn't confirm that. Even if that is the case, deprecated is not equal to disallowed (unless WP has chosen to operationally define deprecated in a manner inconsistent with computer systems and programming languages of the last 50 years.) Either way, the reality is that the status quo of this article violates NPOV far worse than containing the persistent criticism in every section of this article. As I stated earlier, this article is a coatrack for criticizing the father's right movement. It even had Flood, a vociferous critic of father's rights listed as a "significant supporter" of father's rights. Way to create a straw man of father's rights by making one of its biggest critics its spokesman. I really can't say how disgusting it is that the article on father's rights movements has been so vandalized. I can't agree more withShakehandsman comments on useless tangents about arrests in Australia and other radicals. Should the feminism article include sections on Valerie Solanas shooting Andy Warhol or of how prominent feminists (Solanis, Dworkin, etc) worked as prostitutes or is the feminism article to talk about the tenets of feminist theory leaving the libraries of criticisms of it to other articles? Are all father's who want equal rights Australian radicals? Father's rights movements are worldwide. There may be some "scholarly" source who says father's rights advocates don't really care about children (ie Flood) but a critic of the movement is hardly someone that speaks for it. In Latin america most countries don't even have a "best interests of the child" standard and literally say that mothers will get custody of children after divorce unless they are proven unfit. Imagine if the article on Feminism were filled with criticisms of feminism in every paragraph. Not that I think it would necessarily be factually inaccurate for that to be the case, but it wouldn't be an article on feminism then it would be an article on the criticisms of feminism (a topic that articles like Antifeminism are much better suited to.) Likewise most of these excessive (and, though its besides the point, inaccurate) criticisms belong in articles on domestic violence, Conflict Tactics Scale, child custody and Mothers' rights. Not only does this violate WP:Coatrack but it's also WP:Undue--Cybermud (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see more well argued comment here. Just to say I've added more examples of acquittals to the Fathers 4 Justice article rather than just post them here. It would be useful if someone could perhaps look through the edit history of this article to find out exact who has been adding so much problematic material so that appropriate advice can be given and problems avoided in future.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
After re-reading the NPOV policy it's clear to me that there is no categorical edict against criticism sections per se. In any case I'd be amenable to renaming the section "Reception," "Response," or "Controversies" if that makes others feel better.--Cybermud (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fathers%27_rights_movement/Archive_4&oldid=1142362952"