Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Roger F. Gay
Would you mind adding my name to the notable commentators list. I wrote regularly on fathers rights issues for MensNewsDaily.com (mostly - was also published elsewhere) from its very beginnings in 2001 (and was actually researching the subject since 1989 and writing articles from 1995) until MND shut down last year. MensNewsDaily was the premier and most successful fathers rights oriented publication. Aside from regular fathers rights related news, commentary, and analysis, I am an expert in the field. I conducted related research and submitted testimony to the US Congress on the subject several times, served as an expert witness in a related federal case, among other things. The list seems quite incomplete without me. I've set up an articles list through 2009 at http://isr.nu/cs/RogerFGay0.htm ... ~~
- If an editor finds reliable sources demonstrating that you are a notable figure in this field, then he/she is welcome to add you to this article. However, you should be aware that Wikipedia has policies against self-promotion and conflict of interest. Your request to be added to this article could be interpreted as a violation of both of these rules. If you are a notable figure in this field, you should rest comfortably while waiting for an unbiased editor to confirm this by adding your information to this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think common sense dictates in this case that pointing out that I should be included on the discussion page does not violate the self-promotion rule against writing about oneself for self-promotion in Wikipedia articles. I understand the difficulties of writing about a topic without sufficient knowledge. I have a great deal of experience as a non-fiction writer myself, and know the effort required to do the research to produce good material. I'm trying to help. It's just a fact that I am an expert on this topic (everybody has to know about something, right?) and a long time commentator for the movement's most successful publication. I understand the rules dictating that I can't use my expertise to improve the article (without referring to someone else). I'm simply informing any editors interested in improving the article that something important is missing. (MND should definitely be mentioned.) I will be more than happy to advise and provide supportive material to someone interested in expanding the article and the commentators list. Rogerfgay (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- As an expert journalist with hundreds of thousands of readers, I do understand your frustrations and concerns. However, just as I have not attempted to promote myself or my writing on Wikipedia, you should not do so either. Relax. If your writing is notable enough, someone will write an article about you and include you on appropriate lists. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have previously been recognized. At one time, several of my articles were included in the article as reference for the cause of the movement and details about issues. But they were removed by opposition activists. There was also a WP page for MensNewsDaily, also hit repeatedly by trolls and now gone because no one wanted to put in a lifetime of effort to defend it. I've also been recognized as more than a notable journalist on fathers rights issues outside of WP. There's a coming danger that the activist trolls will block inclusion of accurate information on this subject long enough for much of the evidence of its history to disappear. Rogerfgay (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As an expert journalist with hundreds of thousands of readers, I do understand your frustrations and concerns. However, just as I have not attempted to promote myself or my writing on Wikipedia, you should not do so either. Relax. If your writing is notable enough, someone will write an article about you and include you on appropriate lists. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think common sense dictates in this case that pointing out that I should be included on the discussion page does not violate the self-promotion rule against writing about oneself for self-promotion in Wikipedia articles. I understand the difficulties of writing about a topic without sufficient knowledge. I have a great deal of experience as a non-fiction writer myself, and know the effort required to do the research to produce good material. I'm trying to help. It's just a fact that I am an expert on this topic (everybody has to know about something, right?) and a long time commentator for the movement's most successful publication. I understand the rules dictating that I can't use my expertise to improve the article (without referring to someone else). I'm simply informing any editors interested in improving the article that something important is missing. (MND should definitely be mentioned.) I will be more than happy to advise and provide supportive material to someone interested in expanding the article and the commentators list. Rogerfgay (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ebikeguy that it is preferable that somebody other than yourself declare that you are a notable writer. You'll also notice that all those linked currently have biographical articles on WP, as they meet the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. I've done a search, and I'm afraid to say I don't see any sign that you meet the criteria of having received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly that's the process I'm trying to initiate, but I think we need an unbiased view of the evidence. I'm pleased that we've at least gotten past attacks on my name as a way to exclude me. BTW: I once proved that the Democratic Party didn't exist because I didn't find a website for them. (At the time they didn't have one.) Rogerfgay (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I'm pleased that we've at least gotten past attacks on my name as a way to exclude me." I assure you that my motivations for inquiring about your user name had nothing to do with trying to exclude you. I was trying to understand Wikipedia's policy on the matter in relation to personal names used as usernames when an editor was trying to promote himself/herself and his/her work. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand an editor trying to learn about WP policies. Putting other editors through the mill isn't the right way to do that. You should read the policies yourself. If you don't understand them, then you shouldn't be trying to enforce them. Instead, for the moment at least, just try to get help to make sure you don't violate them. I'm an experienced WP editor and don't need all my behaviors and identity tested. It gets in the way of productive work. However, I must say that your apparent commitment to trying to land me in trouble suggested your intent went beyond learning about the rules. It appeared as though you were using misinterpretation of the rules as a way of blocking improvement of the article. Rogerfgay (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The published rules were unclear in this matter. That is why I initiated an RfC, to get clarification from experienced editors as to how current consensus interprets the applicable rules. Your accusations that I am trying to block improvement of this article are unfounded (in fact, the opposite is true) and they verge on a personal attack. Please refrain from similar accusations in the future. Also, please note that I am not motivated by a desire to "land you in trouble." Rather, I am trying to keep inappropriate language out of Wikipedia and make sure that the rules are followed. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand an editor trying to learn about WP policies. Putting other editors through the mill isn't the right way to do that. You should read the policies yourself. If you don't understand them, then you shouldn't be trying to enforce them. Instead, for the moment at least, just try to get help to make sure you don't violate them. I'm an experienced WP editor and don't need all my behaviors and identity tested. It gets in the way of productive work. However, I must say that your apparent commitment to trying to land me in trouble suggested your intent went beyond learning about the rules. It appeared as though you were using misinterpretation of the rules as a way of blocking improvement of the article. Rogerfgay (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I'm pleased that we've at least gotten past attacks on my name as a way to exclude me." I assure you that my motivations for inquiring about your user name had nothing to do with trying to exclude you. I was trying to understand Wikipedia's policy on the matter in relation to personal names used as usernames when an editor was trying to promote himself/herself and his/her work. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly that's the process I'm trying to initiate, but I think we need an unbiased view of the evidence. I'm pleased that we've at least gotten past attacks on my name as a way to exclude me. BTW: I once proved that the Democratic Party didn't exist because I didn't find a website for them. (At the time they didn't have one.) Rogerfgay (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. To satisfy WP:LISTPEOPLE, Gay must be someone notable enough for a biographical article on Wikipedia, even if such biography has not yet been written. I took a quick tour of the interwebs and found nothing about Gay that meets WP:BASIC. All of the sources appeared to be trivial or primary, that is, sources closely connected to Gay. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
List of obvious problems remaining
original thread
- "Conviction for stalking" nonsense - no other articles list single convictions of random, no-notable, unknown people. A very, very obvious attack/smear. Similarly mentioning "allegations" really isn't appropriate here.
- Suggestion all groups are somehow shortlived. I'm sure some are, but again it's quite a silly generalisation, too simplistic and a likely attack.
- Inappropriate/unbalanced focus on Fathers4Justice convictions when the trend has clearly been for acquittals (therefore suggesting unfair treatment by the police if anything). Are public disorder convictions even notable anyway?
--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the information on stalking based on the sources being non-secondary regarding the FRM and not sufficiently reliable, and the information on the F4J convictions for the same reasons (Michael Flood's self-published book was also a citation; though a book, it is published by Xlibris which is a self-publisher. Flood is arguably sufficiently noteworthy to allow for self-publishing but in most cases they were redundant to other citations). I have left in the statements about groups being short-lived as it is sourced to Collier & Sheldon, published by Hart publishing which is reliable. I see no reason to remove it - the book covers five countries (Canada, the US, the UK, Sweden and Australia), is from a reliable publisher, is held in academic libraries, and I don't find the rational for removal to be compelling. An editor finding a statement "silly" isn't a reason to remove something that is adequately sourced. People may not like the information on the page for whatever reason, but that's not a reason to remove it (and please don't cite WP:NPOV as a reason, it's not). Calling it a "likely attack" also isn't a reason - even if it were, it's up to you to substantiate this by reference to reliable sources. And even if it could be proved that it were an attack, the best approach would almost certainly be to include both the "attack" and a discussion of why it's an attack. Does that resolve all issues? Can the tag be removed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, the "short-lived" statement is certainly the last problematic of the three statements, and I'm sure it's true to some extent, I just thought more balance was needed. I wasn't actually proposing removing all the text, just pointing out more balance was needed and hopefully someone can find a source in future. The article clearly was an attack piece (or at least many sections were) when we started this process and had remained so for a significant period of time, and I think it was important to bear this in mind while we've been fixing it. Anyway thanks once again, there's still plenty of work to do, but nothing obvious I can see that requires the tag now, in fact I'll remove it seeing as I was the one to add it in the first place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Multiple reliable sources make the point that some FR activists have involved in activities such as harassment and law breaking. Famously, a "plot" to kidnap Leo Blair led to the dissolution of a UK based group by its own leader [1]. Multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Times, The Guardian and the The Scotsman, The Mirror, The Observer and others mention these kinds of activities [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] as well as the efforts of the mainstream segments of the movement to distance themselves from "the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement" as Glenn Sacks calls it.[9]. Like it or not, the "lunatic fringe" has received substantial coverage in mainstream media (and in the FRM itself) in Australia, US, UK and elsewhere. Per NPOV it needs a brief mention, and I will be restoring something soon. (BTW, re the Blackshirts, I think there was some suggestion above that they were a defunct group; this was clearly not the case, at least earlier this year [10])
- I agree with WLU that the information about the shortlived nature of some of the groups needs to be included. There are references to this in multiple scholarly sources once again referring to a variety of countries, and I will tweak the material in order to make this clear, as well as the fact that the short-term nature does not apply to all group. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the main issue was the implication it applies to all groups, it would be good to solve that issue. As for the "lunatic fringe", the fact is that the article simply referenced one single conviction by one single member of a non-notable group and this was used to smear the entire movement. It quite simply had to be removed whatever your views on the matter and was blatant activism editing presumably by the anti-fathers rights campaigners. Also I think it will be necessary to reference the number of acquittals if there is a source for that. It would certainly be easy to reference some of the very harsh convictions that have occurred and they should be mentioned too, in particular I'm thinking of the very famous case of Mark Harris, who went on to write the book "Uk Family Court Hell". Also a big issue when this article was an attack piece was that mere "allegations" were heavily relied upon, whereas we should be foucsing on verdicts --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the stalking was probably given undue weight and that we should generally focus on convictions and in particularly secondary sources about the FRM and these incidents. However, as you know, Abbott and his Blackshirts are not the only "lunatic fringe" out there, and they are not the only ones with convictions for their activities (as was clear from the references which covered several incidents in several countries). Nor are the Blackshirts, incidentally, non-notable given the extensive coverage they have received in from the BBCthe Guardian the Daily Telegraph the Independent and the others I mentioned above. In fact, Sacks was speaking out against those FR activists who applauded Darren Mack when he killed his ex-wife and attempted to murder the judge involved in their divorce case.
- An important point is that we need to look at whether these activities are being done as part of a group project or as an individual. For example, though Darren Mack was a member of a FR group, and though, from what I can recall, he apparently discussed his plans with members of the group, the shootings clearly weren't part of the group's activities and shouldn't be mentioned or referenced in this article. On the other hand, it appears that Harris was convicted of harassment as part of a F4J protest [11]. Is the fine he got what you meant by the harsh conviction? If so, you'll need some reliable, independent sources to make the case.--Slp1 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, Harris is most famous for being jailed for waving at his children when they went past his house and for sending them birthday presents. He's just one case of course, but certainly the most famous conviction there is in terms of the Fathers' Rights movement (even more so given that most of his children now live with him). There has been plenty of coverage of him in the UK media so sources shouldn't be a problem--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I am guessing that the waving hand thing wasn't part of an organized fathers' rights protest? If so, it really isn't relevant to this article, just like the Darren Mack stuff isn't. Slp1 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well he's certainly one of the key protesters within the movement and the conviction very much illustrates the grievances of the likes of Fathers 4 Justice, i don't knwo if his actions were discussed with others or not really. BTW I'd urge extreme caution with regards the supposed Leo Blair kidnap "plot". The whole story appears extremely suspicious and appears to be mostly tabloid exaggeration, if you read the coverage there's no actual evidence disclosed, no charges, no convictions, no quotes by named people and no suspects are mentioned anywhere. The group had actually started splitting up before the "incident" also. A really good piece here discussing the "story" and the possible reasons behind it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622467/Something-smells-very-fishy-about-the-Leo-kidnap-plot.html--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the Blair thing doesn't warrant a mention here, though obviously it is a different matter in the group's own article. As far as Harris is concerned, the hand waving may well illustrate the problem as you see it, but we aren't trying to make those kinds of points here as it would be original research. It's the same as the Darren Mack case. Someone could easily come by and say based on that "well, Mack was a FR activist and he murdered his wife and shot a judge. That very much illustrates the violence and control central to the whole FR movement". But there is no secondary source out there making that point, so it doesn't go in. We already have plenty of high quality secondary sources which summarize the grievances of the FR movement, and we need to use these. --Slp1 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, Harris is most famous for being jailed for waving at his children when they went past his house and for sending them birthday presents. He's just one case of course, but certainly the most famous conviction there is in terms of the Fathers' Rights movement (even more so given that most of his children now live with him). There has been plenty of coverage of him in the UK media so sources shouldn't be a problem--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the main issue was the implication it applies to all groups, it would be good to solve that issue. As for the "lunatic fringe", the fact is that the article simply referenced one single conviction by one single member of a non-notable group and this was used to smear the entire movement. It quite simply had to be removed whatever your views on the matter and was blatant activism editing presumably by the anti-fathers rights campaigners. Also I think it will be necessary to reference the number of acquittals if there is a source for that. It would certainly be easy to reference some of the very harsh convictions that have occurred and they should be mentioned too, in particular I'm thinking of the very famous case of Mark Harris, who went on to write the book "Uk Family Court Hell". Also a big issue when this article was an attack piece was that mere "allegations" were heavily relied upon, whereas we should be foucsing on verdicts --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- "More balance" again goes back to the heart of the issue - balance isn't "needed", it's demonstrated by citing sources. There is no Platonic ideal of an article that we write towards, merely an ever-expanding series of references we use to demonstrate agreement and disagreement. That is the trouble this page has always faced - the idea that one editor or group "knows" what the FRM is, but can't or won't demonstrate it through sources. So if there are balancing sources - find 'em and integrate. The article wasn't an attack piece, it had sections with sources of inadequate or questionable reliability that were in some cases inaccurately summarized. I will use the hammer one more time - when you "fix" the article, you must do so using sources. I have no objection to the article being edited, so long as reliable sources are found and summarized. This talk page didn't need several hundred thousand characters dumped on it for the small number of relatively minor issues that existed, issues that were easy to deal with. The frustration of Slp1 and myself in the past has been for the most part one of editors insisting the tone or facts were wrong, but without the editors providing sources (and with Michael H 34, he insisted that actually reliable sources were not, because he disagreed with them). I am emphasizing this again because if everyone editing this page takes it to heart, the editing will be civil, require little talk page discussion, and most difficulties will be resolved easily. It is a point all new editors (anyone with less than 10,000 edits and never entering an arbitration case) must grasp if they're going to edit controversial pages. And if you look at the history of the recent article, it's still mostly one of removing sources and shortening the page - this entire discussion didn't add any new information on the FRM. That, frankly, is wrong.
- Thanks for removing the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with all of this, including the removing the tag. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must take issue with some of that. We've hugely improved the article by removing unreliable sources and clear attacks where even the source contradicted what had been added to this article (e.g the abortion issue). Much of the content you removed today wasn't at all notable and constituted undue weight. By removing inaccurate unnotable content we're making it far easier for readers to find out about the subject matter and we've probably saved the article form being deleted entirely and having to start all over again. Similarly I'd imagine there would be considerably less hassle from Fathers Rights Activists as the piece is now far more accurate and reliable. It's perfectly understandable that many people came here frustrated at the state of the piece--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the information on stalking based on the sources being non-secondary regarding the FRM and not sufficiently reliable, and the information on the F4J convictions for the same reasons (Michael Flood's self-published book was also a citation; though a book, it is published by Xlibris which is a self-publisher. Flood is arguably sufficiently noteworthy to allow for self-publishing but in most cases they were redundant to other citations). I have left in the statements about groups being short-lived as it is sourced to Collier & Sheldon, published by Hart publishing which is reliable. I see no reason to remove it - the book covers five countries (Canada, the US, the UK, Sweden and Australia), is from a reliable publisher, is held in academic libraries, and I don't find the rational for removal to be compelling. An editor finding a statement "silly" isn't a reason to remove something that is adequately sourced. People may not like the information on the page for whatever reason, but that's not a reason to remove it (and please don't cite WP:NPOV as a reason, it's not). Calling it a "likely attack" also isn't a reason - even if it were, it's up to you to substantiate this by reference to reliable sources. And even if it could be proved that it were an attack, the best approach would almost certainly be to include both the "attack" and a discussion of why it's an attack. Does that resolve all issues? Can the tag be removed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Slp1, if we re-include any information, at the minimum in the interest of fairness the article in question should be a broad overview of the movement(s), we shouldn't have a series of individual news articles. If the NYT or comparably respected but non-peer reviewed news publication has an article of the broad strokes of the FRM, I would support a brief mention (pending of course, specifics). But we really shouldn't be citing X, Y and Z article about A, B and C incident.
SHM, though we may have improved the reliability of the article by removing unreliable sources, we haven't added anything. A reader of previous versions of the article would be more informed about specific incidents which may or may not reflect on the overall movement, but they still would know more than someone reading it today. If editors are genuinely concerned about the article, rather than one specific slice of, or viewpoint on the topic, then again - reliable sources need to be added. Where you see attacks, I see merely unreliable sources reporting events which apparently happened. If a secondary source shows up saying exactly the same thing, I would support it to the hilt. It is not an attack because editors do not like it, that is the opposite intent of NPOV. In this case we are agreeing by the artifact of the sources being unreliable, but we would be disagreeing, strongly, if the sources were different but the information and summary the same.
Your comment about the article being deleted is very close to 100% wrong. Again, the fact that we are agreeing is an artifact of policies regarding reliable sources - you still need to become more aware of what the core content policies actually support. NPOV does not mean conciliatory. And your understanding of the deletion policy is very, very obviously incorrect. FRM activists came to the page because it carried multiple statements that made them look like asses - misogynist asses at that. But given reliable sources, those same statements or variations thereof could still be present. Please read, thoroughly, WP:NPOV at a minimum. It actually supports the use of critical sources for statements that are objectionable to parties who are sympathetic to the movement. The threshold is at the source, not at the abstract beliefs of individual editors. NPOV is not a simple policy to edit in accordance with or even understand. The main reason I post so much on Talk:AIDS denialism is because many editors who post on that page lack the community's understanding of NPOV and think that "neutral" means "uncritical". It does not. The reason I keep hitting on the sources point is because we can't just assert "X source is wrong", we must demonstrate it is wrong, inadequate, challenged or otherwise represents a controversy in the field. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of expert opinions, it is an encyclopedia of statements added by editors that are sourced to reliable sources. We don't get to be experts, we have to show that our statements are verifiably part of the scholarly consensus (or at least discussion). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we really disagree as much as you think. As I've stated multiple times this article was an attack piece. I've also agreed it was in most places quite a well sourced attack piece, but that doesn't' make it any more balanced. I'm not one of these people calling for all negative material to be removed, I fully support legitimate criticism 100% and agree that some statements "could" be present in a more balanced article. I fully understand NPOV (I've been her for four years afterall) and just wanted to see some accuracy and some balance, rather than people adding as much negative material as humanly possible and twisting what's in the sources to boot. Using your argument it's perfectly acceptable to have an article that is 100% negative about a group even if this is not justified/true just as long as people focus 100% on negative sources/material and go out of their way to ignore anything positive. The point about saving the page is that eventually an article becomes so corrupted, inaccurate and unbalanced it becomes preferable to start all over again and we've stopped that from happening here (I wasn't suggesting the whole page could have been deleted, just all the content). If the trend of adding more and more attacks and smears had continued the piece would have lost all meaning and that would have been an obvious solution--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now I see that Slp1 has added a claim of convictions for assault in the movement based on one single egging incident by one person (and in fact it was the minor offence of common assault too). I think this edit illustrates the point I'm trying to make far better than anything anyone could ever say.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Let's summarize: some FR activists have been doing some things in the name of the FRM, (including stalking, sending hoax bombs, mooting a kidnapping, harassment, mischief and public disorder, endangering motorists, theft etc), and some members have been convicted of such offences. Others in the FRM have publicly deplored these actions. The convictions have been widely reported in the mainstream media; so have the disclaimers/disavowals in multiple articles, including those which seek to summarize the movement, such as the NYT article [12] and the Scotsman article[13]. I agree that we shouldn't go into details, but we simply cannot ignore the different strands of the movement if we want to have a complete encyclopedia article. I find it a bit hard to understand the SHM's protestations. The disclaimers and protestations of non-violence from the FR movement is given far more airtime that the acts themselves; if anything my edits err in NPOV in favour of the FRM. --Slp1 (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now I see that Slp1 has added a claim of convictions for assault in the movement based on one single egging incident by one person (and in fact it was the minor offence of common assault too). I think this edit illustrates the point I'm trying to make far better than anything anyone could ever say.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think "attack piece" is a bit of an exagerration but the article did have some poorly sourced/contextualized statements that were pretty one-sidedly perjorative of the FRM. It still has issues I'd like to address, but I've never had an issue with mentioning that some FRA's have acted badly (so long as it is contextualized properly... which is wasn't/isn't.) I'd be surprised if that weren't the case (some poor behavior.) Baskerville wrties extensively about the fact that fathers are, on the one hand, expected to protect their family and their children at all costs, but, on the other hand, lay down like docile sheep when their children are taken, denied a relationship with them and placed in an environment they view as abusive and damaging to their growth and development and fundamentally violating their rights. Some father's are forcibly removed from their homes via trumped up restraining orders as part of a "unilateral, no-fault divorce" and prevented from seeing their children and, when they respond defensively, even violentely, to this threat to themselves and their family (a reaction many segments of society would expect of them if the threat came from a different source) their, hardly surprising, reaction is used as evidence for the initial "emergency" ex parte restraining order, in spite of there being no other evidence or documented history of "violent" behavior or anger-management problems prior to the rapid fire issuance of divorce and restraining orders inter alia preventing them from going to their house or approaching their children. In short, the FRM has generally even said, it's no surprise when certain individual fathers (or fringe FRA's/groups) lash out when their actions are considered in context, though that shouldn't be taken as a broad-based endorsement of violence as an advocacy method. All that said, I agree with W L U's statements on sources criticising sources and Shakehandsman pointing out that editors (myself included) with their own bias can exclusively choose sources that support their particular POV.--Cybermud (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
MensNewsDaily.com
MensNewsDaily.com was the most successful online journal related to the fathers rights movement. This publication should definitively be mentioned in the article. There was a Wikipedia page for Mens News Daily but the authors apparently got tired of defending it from political trolls and it has apparently been deleted. It would also be a worthwhile project for those who are interested in this topic to build and maintain a page on it. Unfortunately, MND is no longer really in operation, although a few people are still posting to the site on other topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.245.194 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
In the Parental alienation section, it states "Neither PAS nor PAD are accepted by any legal or mental health organization." and sites two sources which I can not find a direct attribution to that claim (but acknowledge I might be missing it. However, that assertion is directly contradicted by this article, published in psychology today, that states courts (thus a legal organization) accepts PAS under one of the two possible standards, and likely under the second. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/caught-between-parents/201107/mounting-evidence-supports-reliability-and-validity-parental-alie , This article, by fathers and families (an advocacy group that has been successful in promoting a great many legals reforms [14], and should be mentioned in this wiki, had this to say (including mention that Dr Baker had in fact, passed the second legal standard http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=18269 )--Kratch (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Fathers' rights movement → Fathers' rights – Similar discussion is taking place at men's rights movement. There the rationale is that "men's rights is not clearly defined from men's right movement", but father's rights is totally differently established, so the name should be that. Similarly, mothers' rights is named like that.
Google Scholar:
- "Fathers rights" 3440 results.
- "Fathers rights movement" 535 results.
Very profoundly indicates that "father's rights" is more established without the movement part much like mothers' rights. Pudeo' 01:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. This seems premature given that the men's rights movement discussion has not closed. But anyway. Google hits are not a useful measure to determine a name, most especially when one term is contained in the other. But the main point is that this article is about the father's rights movement, not just about the fathers' rights they work for. It contains information about the history of the FRM, its demographics, the various branches it contains, and criticisms of the movement as well as discussion of the various topics it focusses on. The article is about the fathers' rights movement, not about only about fathers' rights. Per WP:TITLE, the current name is the one that "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article".--Slp1 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is a different article, and has more to do with mothers' rights than men's rights movement and its move request eventhough that's what made me interested to request this move. Do you then propose we should move mothers' rights to mothers' rights movement for consistency then too? That aricle also starts with explaining the movement. The current wording of this article doesn't matter: articles are always edited to reflect the page move. Editors are free to edit it after the move. So no need to stick to the exact wording of the article as it is now. --Pudeo' 02:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have to look at what this article describes and what the sources say, not try to make parallels with other articles. Scholarly sources often treat subjects quite differently. I really don't know about Mothers' rights; I haven't even looked at the article, but if what you say is true, and the sources mainly discuss the movement, then I would support a move too. Artitle titles are chosen based on what is the best title for the article we have, given the sources. This article is about the Father's Rights Movement, and that is the best title for it. --Slp1 (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is a different article, and has more to do with mothers' rights than men's rights movement and its move request eventhough that's what made me interested to request this move. Do you then propose we should move mothers' rights to mothers' rights movement for consistency then too? That aricle also starts with explaining the movement. The current wording of this article doesn't matter: articles are always edited to reflect the page move. Editors are free to edit it after the move. So no need to stick to the exact wording of the article as it is now. --Pudeo' 02:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Slp1's comments Ebikeguy (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose father's rights and the father's rights movements are not equivalent, one is a movement the other is a set of rights. It's like saying the American Revolution is equivalent to the Articles of Confederation. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose this request, like Pudeo's comments at the Men's rights/Men's rights movement move request, is WAXy, in that their argument for a title change relies on the refrain "what about ...". As Slp1 outlines, Google hits do not help here. Articles are based on sources - this article uses sources that relate to the whole father's rights movement, its aims, its activism and its history etc. This article is not about rights alone, it's about a movement for and about those rights, thus its is named for the movement both in line with WP:TITLE and WP:NOR--Cailil talk 17:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bob Geldof
In the section listing notable supporters of the movement, it is noted that Bob Geldof was divorced and then subsequently widowed. How in the world does a divorced man become a widower upon the death of his EX-wife? Calling him a widower makes even less sense when you realize his EX-wife was married to someone else when she died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
SPLC
As previously noted by another editor, the cited article did not refer to Father's Rights groups as "Hate Groups," as claimed in the language I just deleted. The referenced article appears to be from an RS, so we should be open to other, accurate references from this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "Intelligence Report" published by the SPLC is, by definition, where the "hate groups" are identified. So, an article about a group identifies it as a "hate group" per se. See this quote from Wikipedia's SPLC page: "Since 1981 the SPLC's Intelligence Project has published a quarterly Intelligence Report that monitors what the SPLC considers radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States.[7][8] The Intelligence Report provides information regarding organizational efforts and tactics of these groups, and is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on U.S. right-wing extremism and hate groups.[9][10][11][12]" A similar quote appears on the "hate group" Wikipedia page. Ndickinson1 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- As per my response on your talk page, combining information from two or more sources is synthesis, which is a form of OR. This is not allowed. If your cited reference did not specifically refer to Father's Rights groups as Hate Groups, then you cannot publish conclusions you drew from analyzing multiple sources, and attribute your conclusions to the cited reference. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not my synthesis; it's the way SPLC works, as the Wikipedia SPLC page and references note. Again, as I noted on my page, I am not sure why Wikipedia is not being objective about this, but I would think it may even raise legal concerns that an SPLC "hate group" with a page on Wikipedia is not being accurately identified as such.Ndickinson1 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're jumping to conclusions. The SPLC has a specific list of hate groups and there are no father's rights groups on it, end of story. Any other publication from the SPLC which describes hateful actions of a group is not defining a hate group. They save that designation for very serious and very limited application. For instance, the above-linked article talks about hateful speech from Thomas James Ball and the Fatherhood Coalition of Massachusetts, but the Massachusetts hate map, where SPLC-designated hate groups of that state are shown by location, does not list the Fatherhood Coalition. Binksternet (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Binksternet makes a good point here. A related point is that a criticism about a specific individual in one local group should not be applied to a broader group or to a movement in general. Furthermore, the lede section of an article is not the right place to publish criticisms targeted at one individual in a local group. Ebikeguy (talk)
- Entirely too much weight is given to the SPLC on Wikipedia. Even if various Father's rights groups were labelled hate groups by the SPLC, that would not make them, by definition, a hate group. Such a suggestion is silly. The assertion that the SPLC is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group is even more suspect when one considers that the the SPLC has become more and more blatantly political over the past decades. As for the claim that there might be some sort of legal ramification for not listing a group as a hate group simply because the SPLC defined it as such, all I can say is that such a claim is bullshit, pure and simple. And yes, the harsh language is necessary for such nonsense. When did the the SPLC become an arbiter so powerful that failure to include its OPINIONS became some sort of actionable legal offense? The SPLC is one (increasingly partisan) group among many issuing its opinions on various groups it deems hateful. It is not a quasi-or extra-judicial or legislative body issuing fiats that must be published lest one be punished in a civil or criminal court. Frankly, the assertion that their opinions MUST be published, or else, is laughable. 74.141.152.194 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The problem this thread is about is already solved. Your wish that SPLC's role as hate group arbiter be taken from them or ignored is a hopeless case. They are it by way of multiple references to their work in scholarly and national studies. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Entirely too much weight is given to the SPLC on Wikipedia. Even if various Father's rights groups were labelled hate groups by the SPLC, that would not make them, by definition, a hate group. Such a suggestion is silly. The assertion that the SPLC is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group is even more suspect when one considers that the the SPLC has become more and more blatantly political over the past decades. As for the claim that there might be some sort of legal ramification for not listing a group as a hate group simply because the SPLC defined it as such, all I can say is that such a claim is bullshit, pure and simple. And yes, the harsh language is necessary for such nonsense. When did the the SPLC become an arbiter so powerful that failure to include its OPINIONS became some sort of actionable legal offense? The SPLC is one (increasingly partisan) group among many issuing its opinions on various groups it deems hateful. It is not a quasi-or extra-judicial or legislative body issuing fiats that must be published lest one be punished in a civil or criminal court. Frankly, the assertion that their opinions MUST be published, or else, is laughable. 74.141.152.194 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Binksternet makes a good point here. A related point is that a criticism about a specific individual in one local group should not be applied to a broader group or to a movement in general. Furthermore, the lede section of an article is not the right place to publish criticisms targeted at one individual in a local group. Ebikeguy (talk)
An editor has recently been adding language regarding Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriages to the lede. These have been either uncited or cited with references that did not discuss the Father's Rights Movement. The language inserted seems unambiguously critical of people who are considered to be "members" of the Father's Rights Movement, and thus violates Wikipedia's rules regarding neutral point of view. I have reverted twice already, and do not want to get into an edit war. I request that other editors review the edits I have recently reverted and post your thoughts on them. I further request that no further edits regarding this matter be made until we have achieved consensus as to how we should proceed. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Minor Edit to Shared Parenting section adding reference to back up statement about use of propaganda Stuart264 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not want to get into an edit war over this but the reference is a perfectly valid one to illustrate the use of propaganda in denying fathers rights and was used rather a lot to deny fathers rights and contacts by over exaggerating the risks of contact until the exaggerated propaganda was debunked and while not specifically mentioning the fathers rights in those exact words it was used to deny fathers rights quite considerably. Stuart264 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart264 (talk • contribs)
- Not a minor edit, and not relevant. Baskerville was talking about the fathers' rights movement but your source was not.
- I noticed that the Baskerville book is not very scholarly; the section being quoted is a rant against those who do not want shared parenting laws. He jumps all over divorce lawyers and he berates "radical feminists" who he says are putting out propaganda. I toned down the words to eliminate the bit about propaganda. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your right, while I don't agree with the way Baskerville writes, it is a bit inflammatory and reads better for being toned down Stuart264 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Diapers
@Rhoark: Why do you believe that access to diaper changing facilities is a FRM issues and where are the RS that claim that it is a FRM issue? This is the fifth article you followed me to in the last couple of days, clearly only to revert my changes. I suggest that you stop now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've spoken to the content issues at Talk:Masculism#Diapers. As for following, get over yourself. First of all, I watch several gender-related pages, as do you. I took a look at your recent edits when you came to RSN, which is not unreasonable. Your additions to Misogyny had some problems, which I took steps to fix (not revert). What I have not done is trawl your edit history reverting months-old changes, as you have chosen to do with mine. It's particularly rich that you accuse me of following you to this page or Masculism, when you've reverted a two week old edit half a day after I mentioned it at Talk:Men's rights movement#Access_to_diaper_changing_facilities. Rhoark (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Should we say the title "Fathers' rights" is pejorative?
The term "Fathers' rights" is (sometimes) used as a pejorative term to criticise anyone who tries to argue children should be allowed to have more contact with their fathers. It is used to suggest that all fathers fighting through the courts or campaigning are motivated by their own selfish interest rather than the "best interests" of the child. Fathers seeking more access are accused of wanting to put fairness and equality ahead of the needs of the child. Many people campaign against what they see a a presumption of sole maternal care, because they believe children benefit from having two fully involved parents. If a father thinks his involvement with raising a child would be positive, then he would feel it was his duty and responsibility to campaign for the child's rights to a father.
The term "Fathers' rights" also has negative connotations that link it to "men's rights". The Wikipedia article on "men's rights" states that men's rights activists are anti-feminist. Wishing for fathers to be allowed to be more involved with their children is not anti-feminist. There are strong correlations between the view that women should have equal opportunities in the workplace and the view that men have responsibilities to share the care of their children.
Has anyone any idea of the most appropriate NPOV way to raise these issues in the article? (sources would help :-) ) Human28 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- You should have sources in hand when suggesting changes to the article. Your impression may be stated by some reliable source, but please find the source first. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fathers' rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520124643/http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,1935970,00.html to http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,1935970,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)