Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slp1 (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 16 September 2008 (→Question about WP 3O request: formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Fathers' rights movement has had a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

NPOV & Reliable Sources problem

Articles by Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally in The Guardian promote a POV that family policy favored fathers - i.e. that fathers' rights activists are merely complaining that their advantageous positions w.r.t. family policy have been diminished. This is a biased pov from a source that (according to my read of the reliable source discussion related to this article) is not classified as a reliable source. The inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov. Rogerfgay 13:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I doubt you would find anybody that would agree that the Guardian is not a reliable source. It is a well-established newspaper with fact checking and editorial oversight. But you are welcome to pop over to the noticeboard and check. Collier and Sheldon are well-published academics in their fields, have written a book published by a reputable third party publisher on the topic. They and their book, are in my humble opinion the most reliable source that we have here. The fact that you think it in not of neutral point of view suggests more to be that they don't happen to agree with your POV than anything else. --Slp1 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall whether you were involved in the reliable source discussion related to this article. Or - did I thank you for fairmindedness there? The final comment, apparently by an admin. was that reliable sources come only from recognized academic publications; excluding for example MensNewsDaily.com which has been in business since 2001. It is not merely in this case that The Guradian is not an academic source, it is that the article cited expresses a clear bias that has been transferred into the Misplaced Pages article. An article characterizing the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias. Rogerfgay 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Reliable source discussion referred to WP:RS#Scholarship. Rogerfgay 13:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Because you see these authors as an important part of the discussion, I have moved the citations to comments in another section. Rogerfgay 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read, as has been pointed out several times reliable sources. You will see that you are mistaken in your intepretation of reliable sources policies, and that respected newspapers are considered reliable sources by WP standards. --Slp1 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in Background and history

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

Child Support Reference

Here's a reference to an article in an academic journal: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/published/ps_oct_2004.htm

The article is also available on the website of the journal and in other web-based collections of academic works. But you have to pay fees to obtain memberships to access those other sites such as JSTOR (where it is beyond submission and actually available now) and Cambridge Journals. I am the owner of the document and have the right to redistribute / make available to the public. Other sources charge fees to keep their operations going, which provide one-stop-shopping for all published articles on their journals lists. Rogerfgay 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you confirm what Journal this was published in? It is not clear from the link you provide.--Slp1 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

New Sections

It seems pretty obvious to me that at least two additional sections were needed. "The divorce industry" lies at the heart of major complaints of the Fathers' Rights Movement and is a / possiblly the primary reason for their existence. This may be much clearer in the US than in some other countries - so pardon if UK editors don't see it as well at this point. But the history is that reforms in the US, where "the industry" did drive reforms, spread to other countries via political philosophy on "responsible parenting" rhetoric and welfare reform and such. Rogerfgay 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any possibility that this article can be complete, or even clear, without discussing opposition to fathers' rights. Without opposition, there would be no struggle and no reason for the political movement. There is a very strong and important opposition movement, which in large measure defines the character of the Fathers' Rights Movement (i.e. what they're struggling against). Rogerfgay 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has improved, it's only a good article. I agree that it is incomplete.

The article only mentions the "vested interests" of those who separate children from their parents. I agree that expansion in new section titled "Opposition of the fathers' rights movement" would be necessary to improve the article and paint a more complete picture.

Clearly, as indicated by the recent editing, many do not realize that fathers' rights is a human rights movement. A section that would make this clear would also improve the article.

Michael H 34 01:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sorry if I sound like a broken record (or is it a CD these days?!) here, but please find reliable sources for all of these suggestions. Ideas are great but unless you can find sources they remain just original thoughts and research --Slp1 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a new article be created with the title Divorce industry. This article can then link to it. Michael H 34 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think you would need to be very careful that this didn't end up as a point of view fork. Even the title seems fairly POV to me Slp1 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I noticed in discussion on reliable sources that someone assumed that, since I have knowledge and have written about fathers' rights, that I must have a conflict of interest. I have no conflict of interest. Rogerfgay 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, for the fact that COI if interest does not just cover financial issues. The guidelines suggest that having a close personal interest, and wishing to promote that interest/group might be a conflict of interest. Also "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."--Slp1 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sip1: I think we've all figured out at this point that you are a strong opponent of fathers' rights and that you're going to do your upmost to battle against a neurtral pov in this and related articles; and that it is you with the COI. Rogerfgay 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not so much. But I am a strong opponent of people using Misplaced Pages to promote their views and opinions. So to people whose unsourced, one-sided, and/or POV edits/commentaries I disagree with/challenge/delete, it probably looks like I do. Too bad that you had to return on such a comment though. --Slp1 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Recent edits

Repeating the actions of a previous editor, I have reverting most of the recent changes made to the article, for various reasons. They were badly written, poorly or not sourced at all, and phrased in a POV manner. Please discuss suggested edits here on the talkpage, as has been requested in the past. --Slp1 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sip1. I might understand your pov in, for example, seeing this as involved with a social movement. But people in the fathers' rights movement are not focused on the same issues that you are. They are not for example, the same people as religious right groups. Their relationship is fleeting - just that in both fathers and the relgious right are interested in preservation of family. The current struggle of the fathers' rights movement is a civil rights struggle. The link to civil rights is spot on. The reference to social is not. If you want to support your pov here, then I must ask you to explain. For example, why do you think fathers are not allowed civil rights, or why do you think fathers should not be regarded as natural part of family - or what is it that you would regard as justification for your classification? I guess moreover, and specific to the task of editing Misplaced Pages, why will you not allow an accurate representation of the fathers' rights pov in an article on the fathers' rights movement? Rogerfgay 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I afraid you are mistaken. I do not have a POV on the subject of Fathers' rights. No, I lie, I do have a point of view, which is that this article should be an interesting, well-sourced and neutral summary of the fathers' rights movement.

If you would care to wade through the archives here you would find that I have been spending way too much of my freetime trying to balance the edits of pro and anti fathers' rights editors (who sadly seem to be the only people who drop around). You will see that I have agreed and disagreed with both Trish Wilson (critic) and Michael H, (supporter), and that miraculously the three of us even managed to work fairly harmoniously throughout the spring. But it really is tedious to have people accuse me of protecting a personal point of view, when all I have been trying to do is uphold WP policies. Please see what follows for an example based on your specific point

I don't know (or frankly care) whether the father's rights movement is a civil rights or a social movement (though I note that Glenn Sacks calls it the latter ). As far as I am concerned you are welcome to change it to a civil rights movement if you can find a reliable source that says so and get consensus that this is an appropriate edit. If you can't find a source, well it doesn't matter how strongly you may believe it or even know it, it can't go in, because "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth". Slp1 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"I do not have a POV on the subject of Fathers' rights. No, I lie...."

May I ask you for a verifiable source for each of these statements? :-) Michael H 34 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I was about to write an affronted response until I noticed your smiley!! Here's mine ;-) --Slp1 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the term human rights movement to civil rights movement, but I agree that article is improved if one or the other is included. The current sentence is unsourced and therefore I ask that the improvement to this sentence not be reverted for lack of verifiability. Michael H 34 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I bet you can guess what I am going to say... find a reliable source. For either, anything, I don't care. I will look too. It has been " a social movement" for a long time without complaint, and since we have been trying to source as we have been going along, I think it is very appropriate to ask for a citation if this is going to be changed.Slp1 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I have easily sourced the social movement part. I will leave the HR movement part for the moment but could not find any reliable sources to support this. I will leave this for the moment but please source it soon, or it should be deleted as original research.Slp1 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Michael and Slp1! How are you two? Sorry I vanished like that. I have some writing deadlines to meet.

I corrected a statement in the shared parenting-custody section that really didn't describe the critics view very well. Critics don't cite poverty as the "cause" of "fatherlessness". It's more complex than that, and it's a correlation, not a causation. I cited McLoyd to make the real view more clear. I'm also having some trouble with the formatting. Slp1, can you help me with this? It's been awhile, and I'm having trouble formatting the footnote properly.

Trish Wilson 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I must take issue with the statement in the PAS section that "Critics and members of the fathers' rights movements agree about the danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody." The article by Wendy McElroy, a fathers' rights supporter, does not support the statement that "members of the fathers' rights movement" agree about the "danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers..." McElroy talks only about mothers who allegedly had PAS. That's what she's always said. This statement should be changed to read that "critics cite the danger that parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody," and leave it at that. The way the sentence reads now, it sounds as if fathers' rights groups agree that PAS is routinely used by abusive fathers against protective mothers. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and McElroy's article supports that. The fathers' rights movement in no way agrees that PAS is routinely used by abusive fathers against protective mothers in court.

Trish Wilson 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Trish. Good morning Michael and everybody else. This page and especially a related one on (Child Support) have seen lots of action in the last few days. It has ended up with Rogerlgay being blocked for 24 hours for disruption, edit-warring and POV-pushing. There will be lots of eyes on these pages in the next little while, and as a result I suggest that all edit carefully and cautiously, as we do not want a repetition here, and tempers are a little frayed possibly! I suggest that for the moment we go back to the old style of either proposing edits here on the talkpage, or giving systematic and clear reasonings for our edits after we have done them, once again here on the talkpage. I would also suggest that all read the conflict of interest guidelines, which notes that editors need to be very careful about editing when they have a personal interest in an area (either for or against)and this includes groups such as the FRM. Specifically, and as DanielEng pointed out, "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all." Slp1 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re your edit, Trish. I think that it possibly adds too much detail and is more about the issue than about the FRM than anything else. Maybe a useful addition to the child custody place??. It is also a bit POV (using the word "points out".) I am going to edit out the POV for a start, but in any case, I expect to have some more general suggestions for the direction that this article might go, but I must get to my real work! Slp1 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the extensive detail from McLoyd is included in the article, then the statistics correlated with fatherlessness should be included in the article to balance the weight given the critics point of view. Michael H 34 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The added material is not properly attributed. Michael H 34 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have edited this to reduce duplication etc. Can you explain what you mean by not being properly attributed? I would be happy to take a look if I knew what you meant. Slp1 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You removed the unattributed sentence: "Poverty and job status appear to be key factors regarding positive child outcomes in single mother homes, not merely the presence or absence of a father."

Your edit is an improvement. I have a suggested change though. Michael H 34 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

needs_NPOV

This article appears to have been built using political debate material, including arguments in opposition to ideas of the fathers' rights movement, as a basis for defining the movement. Although such material could be included, it needs to be clearly presented in a section on opposition to the movement. Representation of the fathers' rights movement as a reaction to dimished advantage is obviously a characterization given by some of the strongest opponents to fathers' rights. Characterizing the movement as a "social" movement and refusal to accept the phrase "civil rights" movement is a direct denial that civil rights issues are at stake. Editors have been rejecting the use of citations to credible sources that represent the fathers' rights movement. Properly cited material is deleted when it supports a more complete or concrete description of actual issues. Rogerfgay 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sip1 - Deleting the neutrality challenge tag is an act of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Rogerfgay 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the tag, while the issues are worked out.

The article includes: "Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims of the legal system."

Slp1: I agree that the phrase "once favouring fathers" may be unclear to the reader. Is it possible that "once provided fathers with automatic custody" is an appropriate substitute based on your reliable source? Michael H 34 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Perhaps you would care to remove the tag, then Michael. I think you suggestion about clarifying the sentence is a good one, and will check the sources and get back to you. --Slp1 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Slp1: Yes, please do. The sentence is unclear and if the clarification cannot be sourced then the sentence should be removed. Michael H 34 03:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Such groups suggest that laws once favouring fathers have now swung too far in the opposite direction, establishing men as the new victims of the legal system."

This sentence is confusing on more than one level. In an article devoted to the dangers of male-bashing, columnist John Leo notes that "the last thing we need in America is yet another victim group, this one made up of seriously aggrieved males." The sentence above in the article is beyond repair. It is an attempt by Collier and other would be social engineers to devalue the claims of the fathers' rights group. This sentence should not be included in the article. I believe that there is consensus that it should be deleted. Michael H 34 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Do not remove very well sourced material (as noted above). I said I would clarify it, and I will. Or you could have done it. Michael, you have an admitted POV and an clear interest in promoting the Fathers' rights movement. You should not be making these kinds of edits since it is clear that you are just POV pushing. Even your explanation makes that clear. --Slp1 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence adds nothing to the article. It is belittling. It is undefendable.

I am not the only person who has objected strongly to this sentence. Michael H 34 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

And your objection is based on what WP policy?--Slp1 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus. You are the only person who believes that this sentence improves the article. More than one person has strongly objected to this sentence. The sentence pushes a POV. It introduces the concerns of the movement as "whiny".

I am disappointed by your statement that "I am just POV pushing." I find it unwelcoming. Michael H 34 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I don't think that consensus among two point of view editors is what counts. I am sorry that you find the term POV pushing unwelcoming, but welcoming time is past. I have tried over and over again to get you see that it is your responsibility as a WP editor to edit in a NPOV view way. You never acknowledge these requests, never say you will try, let alone actually begin to actually do it. You just continue to delete sourced so-called negative things you find "belittling", or whatever, and adding pro-fathers' rights information only. You complain selectively about information I have added from respected academics. Some of it you like, thank me for, and want to let stand, but other parts (from the same author) you label as POV, because it doesn't agree with your opinion. What am I supposed to think? Of course I have come to the conclusion that you are POV-pushing. I have repeated asked you to prove me wrong about this by editing neutrally. Because you have come a long way and have tried hard to learn and abide by the policies around here, I really think you have it in you to cross this final frontier. Can you do it? Slp1 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement

I have not come a long way. Not once since my very first edit in Misplaced Pages, have I for example, accused other editors of pushing a POV. My behavior has not just been good or "better than others." It is impeccable, and beyond reproach.

It is not past the time to be welcoming. "Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct. Act in good faith, and assume others are acting in good faith too. Be open and welcoming."

I am not POV-pushing. I have edited to create an article with a NPOV by attributing the sentences I add. I have added criticism to this article, and I can prove this, if necessary.

I admit to having a POV, which is to make the issues of the FRM as clear and well-written as possible. This does not disqualify me from editing this article. I am invited by Misplaced Pages to object to sentences that (1) add nothing to the article and (2) belittle the concerns of the fathers' rights movement.

(Notes: "The Family On Trial", Melanie Mays 1981) "The Fathers' rights movement is the civil rights movement of our era. Some belittle...." Michael H 34 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sigh. I try to give you a compliment, and you turn it into some sort of insult. Remember the days when you didn't know how to format references, or that we should do edit summaries, or that any old blog was not a reliable source, or that we can't add our own ideas and research, or that we can't synthesize ideas together to make a point. I think you have learnt a tremendous amount as you have edited here, and it is to your credit that you have great at putting it all into practice. And no, you haven't descended to personal attacks as others have.

Please note I am assuming good faith because I keep saying that you have it in you to be neutral editor, and keep asking you to try it. I still haven't given up hope. I agree you have added some "critical" edits, but you must admit that the percentage as compared to your pro-father's rights edits is very, very small. You are certainly entitled to a point of view, but if you edit the article and the talkpage as you have, then you must expect that people will see it as pushing your POV. Which frankly it is, even if you see it as just objecting to sentences that "add nothing to the article" or "belittle the concerns of the FRM". Funny how often the things that "add nothing" or "belittling" are sourced sections which you interpret as critical. Funny how often extra sections/sentences appear with more FRM advocacy. And I am not the only editor who has noticed the patterns in your edits. But anyway, I give up. I have better things to do with my time than to work on an article with editors who make almost every well-sourced edit a battle royal. Have fun. I have a feature article to save. Slp1 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your help on this article is greatly appreciated. You will be welcome back. Best wishes, Michael H 34 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Richard Collier's POV

The following is a quote from a citation by Miranda Kaye, who I characterize as a critic:

"Nonetheless, while the feelings of suffering are real, the framework of values and understandings which is used to characterise and make sense of both those feelings and the experiences which give rise to them is very-much open to debate.325 Richard Collier makes such a distinction when he talks about, the "disjunction between the very real experience of personal disempowerment which appears to exist on the part of many of these men and the facts of power?”326 We are concerned that the fathers' rights movement, and a number of the media representatives and public figures who deal with these groups, do not draw such a distinction."

After reading this, it is not surprising to me that Richard Collier refers to the fathers' rights movement as a social movement rather than a civil rights movement. I interpret "the facts of power" to mean that fathers have no rights to their children. This is the heart of the issue and Collier is not neutral.

Fathers Rights' activists contend that the human rights of children to both parents and the civil rights of parents to live in peace with their children have been woefully abridged, and they have proposals. Their proposals other than their proposal for shared parenting (no-fault divorce, child support, and the operations of the family courts) have not yet been included in the article. This should be done.

In addition, the very first sentence needs improvement. Michael H 34 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You are misinterpreting "facts of power". My clear understanding is that he means that men are in a more "powerful" position in the world, including physically, economically, professionally, status etc etc as compared to women. You will see that this makes sense in the context of the paragraph and the use of the word `disjunction`. Please note, that while Collier and Sheldon do appear to agree that it is a social movement, the actual references given in this cite are to others. --Slp1 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some irony in the "fact" that your interpretation of "facts of power" is completely opposite to mine?!?!? I accept your interpretation though, even though it never would have even occured to me. Ever.

Richard Collier believes that "male privelege" is a "fact."

One of the irksome statements made by the critics in this article is that "fathers are non-custodial parents because they do not want to be primary custodians to their children." Men know that a custody battle is expensive, not in the best interest of their children, not in the best interest of the relationship with the mother of the children who has been empowered to be a "gatekeeper" to his parenting time, and almost certainly as a result of bias and self-interest of the divorce industry, futile. Although viewed by politicians as having "abandoned his children", he has been forcibly separated from his children literally through "no fault." What is more important than our children? I dismiss the notion that male privelege exists and I strongly suggest that Richard Collier is a NOT neutral source. Best wishes, Michael H 34 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Well, it is too bad that you are unwilling to explore this issue. Personally I find that life is richer if one tries to see things from another perspective, however uncomfortable and challenging it may be at the start. And trying to understand the other view is something we all need to do on Misplaced Pages when editing from a neutral POV.

The Collier and Sheldon book is a collection of 6 chapters written by 7 different academics from 6 different countries. Are you going to say that none are neutral? Even if they are not, are you claiming that Sacks, Baskerville etc are neutral? In any case, it doesn't matter whether they are what you call "neutral" or not. From WP:V you will note that Misplaced Pages relies "heavily" on the work of scholars, academics and material published in the most reliable publications including journals, books and mainstream newspapers. That's what these people are and where they have published. Baskerville and his new book too. These are the most verifiable, reliable sources we have, and like it or not these should form the core of the article. BTW, I really would encourage you to get a copy of the Collier and Sheldon book. It is extremely interesting and thought provoking, and not too long! Slp1 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Life is interesting! I have explored the issue! I've read Dickens and Hardy as well.  :-)

These men are suffering what is unimaginable for some and this suffering is juxtaposed with their perceived privelege. These men have had their children taken away from them and it's as if others would like to tell them "enjoy your privelege, sir!" Just become a captain of industry or a governor!

I am willing to say that the academics who do not recognize that a "rights" movement is about "rights" are not neutral. I also suggest that their points of view are not independent.

Maybe I will purchase the Sheldon and Collier book. Thanks for the recommendation.

Best wishes, Michael H 34 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Mmm. I think you are taking the sentence way too literally. Not sure where what you mean about rights movement or that the academics are not independent. Independent of what? But like I said, worrying about what is and is not a neutral source is not necessary, and also pretty much impossible to determine (You and Trish would have very different ideas, for example). We need reliable sources. Full Stop. Slp1 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Independent of what?"

Independent of each other.

"But like I said, worrying about what is and is not a neutral source is not necessary,...."

I agree with you.

The fact that reliable sources need not be neutral may soon become the topic of debate on the Child support discussion page. Michael H 34 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Michael H 34

Yes, this prediction was correct. Michael H 34 04:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is a different page, about a different topic. Baskerville is obviously a reliable source here.--Slp1 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So this guy is trying to do mass psychological analysis? I haven't read him, so I don't know what possible value his work might have. But it does not appear to be focused squarely on the subject. It is one of many discussions that go off into whatever space an analyst wanted to take it. I presume that the author is a psychologist or sociologist? His general focus of study is most likely the reason for presenting that pov, rather than an effort to characterize the purpose or reason for the movement as accurately as possible. My sense is that a psych approach is being used here to avoid writing about the issues and concerns of the fathers' rights movement; by starting with a claim that it's just a bunch of guys responding emotionally ... to the loss of advantage they once had as men (the extreme feminist argument). Rogerfgay 07:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you have read the book. You are both editors with admitted pro-fathers rights POVs and are to all intents and purposes SPA accounts. And now you are making inaccurate speculations about the content of a book you haven't even read and the authors you know nothing about. Do you realize how unscholarly and inappropriate this is? Do you realize how unlikely it makes it look that you can edit this article in a NPOV way? For the record, the authors work at 8 different universities in 6 different countries. For the record, the authors represent 4 different disciplines, none of them psychology.Slp1 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"You are both editors with admitted pro-fathers rights POVs and are to all intents and purposes SPA accounts."

Actually, I have edited a few other articles related to science. Some edits were minor. Some were not. I honestly admit that I have a POV with respect to this article. I suggest that this should not be considered as some sort of evidence against me or my edits. I have never resorted to name-calling or labeling with respect to other editors.

To me, the aforementioned statement by Richard Collier was not neutral. So what. For all I know, he's changed. Michael H 34 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that you have behaved much better than other editors, Michael. But I remain frustrated by the POV nature of many (but not all) of your edits and many (but not all) of your comments on this page. I would honestly have incredible respect for you if you could edit this article with NPOV, adding the good and the bad about the FRM equally. So here's a challenge. I don't blame you for editing out the Darren Mack part: not nice to be associated with such a man, and I think you were at the time correct that it wasn't that clear what the link between the FRM and him. But it seems from the latest news reports and even a June 2007 Glenn Sacks post,(see point 6) that he did consider himself a hard-done by member of the FRM. What do you suggest we do about this now? Slp1 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. Please tell me you are not the Michael H who posted twice at the Sacks column. That Michael H knew a long time ago that Mack had called FR leaders while on the run. He sure sounds like you, but hopefully I am wrong. Slp1 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I imagine that you do not shy away from frustration since you have volunteered your skill and effort on this article. I also suggest that it is not a miracle that we have worked together harmoniously and that the article has come this far.

The CBS report provided innuendo but absolutely no evidence connecting Mack to the FRM. The San Diego article does not mention the FRM. Glenn Sacks's post suggests that Mack tried to join the movement after murdering his wife in a selfish attempt to protect himself. The Las Vegas Sun article does not mention the timing of Mack's association with his "teammates." Mack's motivations were selfish and not representative of the FRM.

How much weight does this man's actions deserve? I suggest that this despicable man deserves no weight in this article. Michael H 34 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That's the problem right there. You consider him "not representative of the FRM" (Original Research). You would like the article to reflect your ideal of the FRM rather than than his "He is despicable", "How much weight does this man's actions deserve?"(Point of View).

Three references make clear that he was involved with the fathers' rights movement and had even made a video for them.

Las Vegas Sun "Prosecutors used testimony from Osborne and Garret Idle, a self-described "teammate" with Mack in a father's rights advocacy group, to portray the attacks as a premeditated plot to end a contentious divorce and send a message to a legal system that he believed had wronged him. Idle was blunt with his disdain for Weller. He said his first act after hearing Weller had been shot was to call Mack, with whom he said he shared views about Weller being unfair and the Family Court system as "dysfunctional" and needing "to be torn down.""We were both teammates trying to tackle a very important issue," Idle said."

Associated Press."Mack had been so angered by the judge's rulings in his case that he'd contacted fathers rights advocates and agreed to a taped interview about his case. Daskas played the video for jurors. In it, Mack railed against the “tyranny” of the court and compared his battles to the Revolutionary War. “At what point do we ... state we're not going to take this anymore. Where do we draw the line?” an agitated Mack says to the camera".

Court TV "In his opening statement, Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Daskas showed jurors clips of a video in which Mack was interviewed by members of a fathers' rights group. He railed against Weller and the family court system, saying at one point that the injustices of his divorce were like those of the American colonists fighting the British — only worse."

In this article you removed the citation and the claim that violence had been done by a member of the FRM. and on the FR by country page you did more: and on the FR's rights in the US, this one None put exactly excessive emphasis on the case.

There are now reliable sources that these edits were accurate (though I agree they were not very well sourced at the time.) Why not show that you are trying to be NPOV editor and restore what was there before (though the new citations would be good!). You haven't responded about whether you are Michael H on Glenn Sacks and therefore knew about the fact that Mack had contacted FR leaders after the murders. If you did then this edit, is problematic, because you knew from Glenn Sacks that he had claimed to be a fathers' rights activist, as the article had stated.Slp1 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Without question, no edit or series of edits that I have ever made in Misplaced Pages is problematic, both within articles and on discussion pages.

Someone added improperly sourced information about Mack. I reworked this information to state that Mack claimed to be a member of the fathers' rights movement. So it stood for quite some time. However, when I realized that I had been fooled by the CBS article, I removed the information about Mack because even a statement such as "Mack claimed he was a member of the fathers' rights movement" is not properly sourced.

The links you provide here do not state that Mack was a member of the fathers' rights movement and they do not even state that Mack claimed to be a member of the fathers' rights movement.

Even the blog post (why is this a reliable source?) merely states that a wife killer tried to cover up his crime by contacting a fathers' rights group.

Mack should get no weight in this article. Michael H 34 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The links you provide here do not state that Mack was a member of the fathers' rights movement". He was involved, Michael, it is as clear as day. Here's another one "Jurors heard from seven additional witnesses Thursday, including a man Mack met in a support group for fathers who felt wronged by the family court system. Garret Idle said he and Mack both felt terribly mistreated by Weller's handling of their divorces." I absolutely agree that his name and deeds have no place in this article, but merely readding that violence has controversially been used by some madmen members of the members is totally appropriate. Slp1 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article so that it agrees with what has been sourced in the added citations. Michael H 34 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have restored it. Read the 4 sources. He was clearly involved with the FR group before his crimes. I haven`t even linked to the Sacks post about what he did aftewards.Slp1 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He must have sought support from the fathers' rights group prior to his crime, otherwise he would have been turned over to police. Michael H 34 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm confused. Oh okay, I get it. Yes, I expect you are right. Slp1 01:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

Too bad you decided not to discuss this first, as suggested, Michael, but anyway. I don't agree that the reference you provided is adequate for this claim. This is an advertisement for a conference/radio show, and has no known author. As such it does not qualify as a reliable source. In addition, the ad also specifically says that others disagree that it is a civil rights movement, (as does title of the conference " Civil Rights Leaders or Reactionary Patriarchs?"). This making adding that the FRM is clearly a Civil Rights movement a very POV statement. If you can find a better source I guess we could add that the FRM claims it is a civil rights movement somewhere in the next. --Slp1 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Fathers' rights movement "has been characterized" was reliably sourced. Michael H 34 19:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I can't argue with the fact that it has been characterized as such. But fathers' rights groups have not formed as social groups. They have formed specificially for the purpose of dealing with civil rights problems. But it may be too much to get through the Misplaced Pages politics of actually characterizing it for what it actually is. This, and much of the remainder of the article still presents an opposition pov which is not neutral. There will be no lack of citations for opposition argument. Opponents of fathers' rights have been very active and have written a lot. Rogerfgay 07:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A unsigned ad is not a reliable source.--Slp1 19:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the source. Michael H 34 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm looking into the other citations for characterization as a social movement. It is not uncommon for a sociologist to study sociology or a psychologist to study psychology. The question is whether the characterization of such a study is also (concidentally) an accurate characterization of the fathers' rights movement. My view is that the benefit of any doubt should be given to representatives of the movement. Otherwise, the article is destined to go off in as many random directions as there are authors to write from different povs, and readers will be left with the impression that the fathers' rights movement has no specific purpose. Rogerfgay 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"My view is that the benefit of any doubt should be given to representatives of the movement." Absolutely and completely wrong. This is an encyclopedia not a FRM promo page. Do you think Enc. Britannica would let FR supporters write the article and determine content? The same goes here. You really really need to read the policies here. They have been pointed out enough times, but here goes again. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Slp1 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Several of the recommendations on page 298 of Taken Into Custody... have yet to be added to the article. Michael H 34 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The section on the divorce industry and the opposition to the fathers' rights movement has yet to be added to the article. Michael H 34 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've made a start. More needs to be added. Michael H 34 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Kenedy is one of the "New Social Movement" scholars who studies civil rights movements in terms of social justice issues; which ties things together with a common thread for comparative analysis. Mckee defines groups by various common distinctions such as “queer”, black, feminist, and father and treats each of these characteristics as a “social” identity for the group. Regardless of how interesting and authoritative you might find these authors, the characterization of the fathers’ rights movement as a social movement misses the boat. In fact, to what extent is the fathers’ rights movement actually a “movement”? As a broad generalization, there are people who have banned together for a specific purpose, so this term can be applied. But their battle is simply against corrupt government policies that harm them and groups that profit from the policies. It has been necessary for them to form groups because it is now impossible to deal with these issues individually. This does not in my view, a social movement make. Rogerfgay 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"profit from the policies"

The article needs to make this clearer. It is more than just those within the family court system that profit from divorce.

I suggest that a new section labeled Opposition to the fathers' rights movement should describe the vested interests outside of the Family Court System. Michael H 34 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Background and History - recent edits

Slp1: Good job! Well done!

I would like to add "Fathers love their children."

Best wishes, Michael H 34 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I presume you are joking about your last comment! You realize that these analyses come directly from the book you have been disagreeing with? --Slp1 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being sincere. I was not joking about the last comment. Yes, I realized this. Michael H 34 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Well then I will answer sincerely. I don't agree to it. I would see as an attempt to add emotionally-laden POV rhetoric to the article. Sorry --Slp1 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Men are encouraged, by society and by legal factors, to be more involved as fathers at a time when, in certain ways, it is more difficult for them to do so."

I disagree with the truth of this sentence. Michael H 34 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

My first answer is that you should take your disagreement up with Collier. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth". ::My second answer is to inquire whether there might be something that is unclear in the sentence that leads to your disagreement. How are you interpreting it? Slp1 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth". I understand this.

What legal factors encourage father involvement? Michael H 34 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here is the summary of three trends" "that underpin the new prominence of the FRM internationally: firstly complex shifts in household and familial arrangements, secondly changes in the understandings of fatherhood, motherhood and importantly, childhood; finally a shift in how legal regulation relates to the family."

The book has more details later, but is a bit hard to follow, I find! Took me a few readings to get it! In the section entitled "Law, State and Governance":

"This brings us on to the third broad factor that underlies the increased profile of the FRM: the shifting nature of the regulation and governance of family practices within certain jurisdictions. In the UK, for example, it has been suggested that, within a broader context of a political refocusing on ideas of citizenship and responsibility, there has been a clear and determined attempt to effect 'social engineering' in the area of the family by changing the very nature of post-divorce family life. The repositioning of fatherhood has been a central element in this process, with ideas of 'good' fatherhood being reconstructed in complex ways in the the legal regulation of post-divorce family life." Slp1 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"The 'social engineering' in the area of the family by changing the very nature of post-divorce family life. The repositioning of fatherhood has been a central element in this process, with ideas of 'good' fatherhood being reconstructed in complex ways in the the legal regulation of post-divorce family life."

Did these authors provide an example of this social engineering?

Will fathers be required to pay hourly fees to visit their children under the supervision of government-funded employees, who demean the fathers in front of the children and who depend on the operation of the family courts for their jobs? Michael H 34 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Try reading the book and finding out for yourself whether these negative interpretations are justified or not. Hint: they are not. Slp1 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence at issue begs the question, what "legal regulations."

The members of the fathers' rights movement state that legal regulations are separating children from their fathers, and that Bar Associations are campaigning against shared parenting, but the sentence at issue states that "legal regulations" are expecting fathers to be more involved as fathers.

Through innuendo, the sentence pushes the idea that fathers are not involved with and readily abandon their children, but with the help of legal regulations (and the attendant government bureacracy) will a myth of a problem be solved. I object to the inclusion of legal regulations in this sentence unless an example can be provided. Men are being forced to stay away from their children as a result of the abuse of legal regulations. Michael H 34 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: It is coincidence, but this morning I just read about "Responsible Fatherhood Programs" and "Supervised Visitation Centers" on page 254 of "Taken Into Custody..." Michael H 34 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A final word. You are totally misinterpreting this sentence, which is actually a rather interesting look at factors leading to the growth of the fathers' rights movement in the last 30 years. There is no innuendo and actually it is rather positive, if you could only see it. And remember that while you may not agree with it, and can even produce original research to support your contention, that doesn't mean that the sentence isn't verifiable (which it is) and shouldn't be in the article (which it should). But I won't hold my breath. Slp1 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct that I am misinterpreting this sentence, but whether I am or not does not matter. It is not wrong for me to provide my POV about connecting the words "legal regulations" with "requiring fathers to be more involved as parents."

While I was critical about the "legal regulations" sentence and the "new victims" sentence, I was almost overwhelmingly positive about your edits, and I was never critical of you as a person or as an editor. Your effort and skills helped to create a very good article. I fondly wish you well in your future endeavors. If circumstances permit, I hope to welcome you back to this article once again. Michael H 34 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

buying a baby

is it legal to offer money for full custody of a child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.127.230 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links At End Of Article

Hi, Slp1 and Michael!! You guys have been busy.  ;)

I read your comments to my earlier post, Slp, and I agree with you. It's been a bit heated in here, as well as very busy. I'll post any changes here first and talk to you before making any changes on the article page. I've been very busy with work myself so I haven't been able to help out here.

I do have one change I'd like to suggest. Could the External Links and External Links Critical Of The Fathers Rights Movement be moved farther up the article to just after Notable Supporters? I'm used to seeing footnotes as the final thing in an article, and seeing the External Links pages after the footnotes throws me off a bit. What do you think, Slp?

Trish Wilson 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Bias

Removed badly edited statements that were clearly biased. Unsure whether they need to be rewritten more neutrally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.66.3 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

81.152.66.3 while I understand why you removed the content that removal was not the best option. The lines I reinstated have been included in the section to give a neutral point of view. I did not reinstate the claim that women file less domestic violence and child abuse claims because I can't find that being supported in the references. Also I have reworded the lines so that they are more neutrally recorded. Also please sign your comments using ~~~~--Cailil 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thankyou, That was my first edit on wikipedia was I'm a little hazy on the rules. 81.152.66.3 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the content on WP:RS/WP:V grounds. XYonline is not a reliable source, i.e., a "reliable, third-party, published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Specifically, it appears to be a self-published source. Blackworm (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The content should be restored because this article cites the fathers' rights point of view as well as points of view of critics, so XYOnline is a reliable source. I have never before undone an edit, so I apologize in advance if I completely screw it up. Trish Wilson (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to undo the removal of the XYOnline source. Cailil, could you please help me with that? Thanks in advance. Trish Wilson (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument does not logically follow. What the article says has no bearing on whether the source is reliable. XYOnline is clearly a tiny, self-published website resembling a blog, not a news source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please carefully read WP:RS and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) before restoring this unreliable source. Blackworm (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into an argument with you. This article has a history of using sources that are both fathers' rights points of view and critics points of view. XYOnline belongs here just as much as the fathers' rights sites referenced here belong here for the purpose of presenting both fathers' rights views and critics views. I'm not sure how to restore a source, so I'll leave that to Cailil.75.69.138.115 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, that was me - Trish Wilson (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why the critics view of child support was deleted from the article. There was no reason to delete it, and I don't know how to restore it. 75.69.138.115 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, that was me - Trish Wilson (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit you are supporting (using XYOnline as a source), violates official Misplaced Pages policy, and therefore must be removed from Misplaced Pages. If you wish to overcome my objections to the use of this source (XYOnline), you must demonstrate that XYOnline is a "reliable, third-party, published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Considering that the XYOnline states, "XY is run by two people at the moment, and we'll put in as much money of our own as we can. But we can't afford this much. Any contribution, no matter how small, will be gratefully accepted," I believe this will be extremely difficult to demonstrate. Blackworm (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. This article supports sources that both support and criticize the fathers' rights movement. Fathers' rights sources that normally would violate Wiki policy include Glenn Sack's articles from his newsletter, an article from the fathers' rights publication The Liberator, the Fatherhood Coalition web site, and similar web sites that wouldn't normally be supported by Wiki policy. Since those sites provide the point of view of the fathers' rights movement, they are accepted on this article. Likewise, critical views of the fathers' rights movement have been supported here for the past year or so. I'm not sure which XYOnline article was sourced here. Was it one by Dr. Michael Flood? He is a viable source regardless of where he is published. I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. I'll wait until Caillil reads these posts and gives his two cents. Trish Wilson (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You say, "He is a viable source regardless of where he is published," but that clearly contradicts official Misplaced Pages policy, even if you could demonstrate that his opinion is somehow notable, which you have not demonstrated. The other sources you mention may indeed be unreliable; that depends on whether they are used to state notable opinions from the publishers themselves (as seems to be the case for Glenn Sachs). However, that is not an argument in support of XYOnline being a reliable source, since it clearly is not. Blackworm (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trish is correct, WP:V explains that a source from an established expert can be used even if it is an op-ed and falls close to being "self-published":

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources

XY was and should be used with care - it was not used and can't be used for interpretation, it should only be described (WP:PSTS) since it really is a primary source. Now the notability of Dr. Flood is a non-issue. This is a list of some of his major publications in this field:

• 'Engaging men: strategies and dilemmas in violence prevention education among men' by Michael Flood in Women Against Violence: A Feminist Journal, 2002
• Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the Extent of Exposure and Likely Effects by M Flood, C Hamilton, (Australia Institute, 2003)
• Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities by Michael Flood, Judith Kegan Gardiner, Bob Pease, Keith Pringle, (Routledge, 2007), ISBN: 9780415333436
• Fatherhood and Fatherlessness by Michael Flood, Australia Institute
• Mapping Homophobia in Australia M Flood, C Hamilton (Australia Institute, 2005)
• 'Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice' by Michael Flood in Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities ed. by Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn, R. W. Connell (Sage, 2005), ISBN: 9780761923691
• 'Divorce, the Law and Social Context' by Michael Flood in Acta Sociologica, Vol. 34, No. 4, 279-297 (1991)
• Lost Children: Condemning Children to Long-term Disadvantage Michael Flood, (Australia Institute, 2004)
• Michael Flood & Bob Pease, 'Undoing men’s privilege: and advancing gender equality in public sector institutions’ in Policy and Society vol. 24, n.4, 2005
• Angela Taft, Kelsey Hegarty and Michael Flood, 'Are men and women equally violent to intimate partners?' in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Volume 25 Issue 6 Page 498-500, December 2001

That list (which is incomplete) makes Flood a notable academic - if you continue to doubt this please RFC this article or ask for a third opinion or request an uninvolved sysop to overview. But bear in mind Blackworm that if your definition of WP:RS is applied to this article all of the other sources on a par with X&Y need to be removed, such as glennsacks.com (cited 3 times), fatherhoodcoalition.org (cited twice), Slate.Com, acfc.org. That would be bad for the article - but if you insist on this, all of the above sites have to go.

As it stands new sources for studies criticizing CTS have been found. These 2 or 3 lines are enough to make the piece comply with offical policy - NPOV - no more needs to be said. However more sources exist criticizing the CTS from articles in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence from 1992 to at least 1997. I feel that any more would be undue so I would advise leaving it at this. I am sorry that my post was so long, too many issues were raised for a shorter comment--Cailil 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

XYOnline does not "fall close" to being self-published, it is entirely self-published, as I have demonstrated above. Flood, the "expert" you wish to quote from this source, is one of the two owners of XYOnline (a blog website), which apparently has no print version, no distribution, no editorial board, no staff, and no income.

In your quote of WP:V, you curiously truncated the last sentence, without using ellipses to alert the reader that you had done so. The full WP:V sentence is: However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. I concur with this. If CTS (which was not self-published) has been criticized effectively, then it has been done in peer-reviewed sources (which I'm sure it has). The fact it has been done in self-published websites is irrelevant, no matter who has published that information. Surely a better source that a self-published website can be found if criticism of CTS is notable enough to be presented.

You seem to share an overly common but extremely inappropriate belief that editing Misplaced Pages articles is a kind of quid pro quo, where sentences with offending unreliable sources or non-neutral POV are to be bartered and traded. I do not share that view, thus your apparent threats to remove material you seem to believe resonates with my personal POV are completely powerless over me. I am helping build an neutral encyclopedia, that actually adheres to its stated goals; I'm not trying to suppress material I don't agree with, if that is your impression. Each source's reliability is to be evaluated separately, not grouped together based on what POV you believe them to be espousing. If you wish to discuss the reliability of a different source than the self-published website under discussion here, then I invite you to begin a new discussion section. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this, Cailil: we generally agree that if these self-published websites from otherwise notable parties (as shown in WP:RS) are to be cited, we disclose this in the article's prose; similar to attributing views when views are notably split. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By "this" I mean the fact the sources are self-published (e.g., On his website, Flood claims...). Blackworm (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this. The reference link makes the source clear enough.Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

N P O V declaration.

The Fathers Rights Movement in and of it's self is a P O V. Any contribution to an article in opposition of the goals of this (or any) "movement" would be in contrast to any sort of N P O V on this subject.

To maintain a Neutral Point of View on any movement, one must only stick to the citations of the goals, history and actions of the movement. Any "reaction" to this movement is, defacto, a Point of View.

I am, in no way, saying that one cannot be opposed to the movement. Merely that this article should not have ANY opinions either for or against the subject of the article. However, being that in this case, the subject of the article IS a collective opinion and the subsequent actions of its supporters, any citations of statements in opposition of the movements actions and/or opinions is not neutral to the article.

--Pappaapsu (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New background and history section

Regarding this reversion of my reversion of this new section, I just thought I'd explain myself better and see if I could get a discussion going.

• As written, it's hard to read with all of the case citations interruptng the sentence flow. The citations should be in the references section to improve readability.
• It lists a bunch of case law precedents without really showing how they form the "history and backround" of the Fathers' rights movement - I understand how the law is the precursor, but feel that the article should make the connection more strongly. Some of the details might be better suited to an article about family law.
• It doesn't come close to representing a worldwide view - it's all about the US.

A word on my POV - I just want to defend myself against the assertion that my deletion was not NPOV, especially since you can tell from my user name that I am a woman, therefore obviously not a father. I'm not a mom (yet?) but I watch this article because of the heartbreaking trouble my fiance is going through with his ex just to spend time with his son. My bias is in favour of Fathers' rights. I really just want to help improve the article, which was why I deleted the section in the first place, so here I am belatedly following my own advice, and seeking consensus on the talk page. I still think that the article would benefit from having the section removed until the information can be edited and rewritten. Any other thoughts, opinions, etc.? Dawn Bard (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

Stephen Baskerville is clearly a member of the fathers' rights movement and as the author of Taken Into Custody, The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family and as a former president of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, he clearly speaks for many members of the fathers' rights movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

External links

The external links critical are problematic from my mind, here's why:

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

--The Flood and I believe the Trish Wilson links have alrady beend iscussed. Read a bit above your post please. NeoApsara (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trish Wilson's comment seems to be addressed by the Manual of Style, which puts the standard appendicies in a specific order (here). If there's archived discussion, I'll try a quick review when I've the time, but a link directly to a section in the archive would be handier. WLU (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the external links sections needs pruning, but disagree with WLU's decision to delete all the 'critical' ones and not to touch the 'pro' ones, some of which are just as much advocacy and POV as the ones deleted. In any case, my view is that they should not be divided into two sections, and that Flood's website at least (a published academic in the field) offers important additional information that fully meets WP:EL --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

True enough, I looked over the last three "pro" and the were pretty crappy - two blog entries and some senate testimony that wasn't so grossly long it couldn't be used as a reference. Removed, it's just the DMOZ now. Flood could be supported per WP:EL, if it's judged reliable (don't know if he's famous enough to make the RS loophole), but it's primarily a source; it's better linked as an inline citation in my mind. WLU (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough to delete them all: I'm not a great fan of EL farms anyway, and this way the temptation to add more is gone. However, perhaps it's worth noting however that EL do not need to meet WP:RS criteria in terms of reliability etc needed for sourcing the text, and self-published sources can be included there. Having said that, Flood, as an academic who has written extensively in the field , in my opinion easily meets the criteria for the reliability of self-published by an expert.Slp1 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On father's rights? A scholar can be notable for one field, but not qualify for another. I don't know 'cause I haven't looked into it; cursorily the stuff on masculinity suggests yes. I'd still rather avoid SPS if possible, are they redundant to a) anything else flood has written or b) anything anyone else has written? And do they represent the scholarly majority or is it undue weight to place a lot of emphasis or external linking on his opinion? Again, I'm asking 'cause I don't know (and haven't looked into it, they're my standard concerns for self published sources). WLU (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are talking about EL links still, where this doesn't apply in any case. But anyway, I would strongly argue that Flood's extensive work in Masculinity, men's movements and violence including a recent chapter in this book entitled "What's wrong with fathers' rights?" makes him an SPS expert in the field. Note that Glenn Sacks' books etc on men's rights have also been used to suggest that his blogs can be used here (as they are). I am very much less convinced by Phyllis Schlafly, whose webposts are also being used to support citations in the text (and there are others). User:Cailil makes more or less exactly the same point above about what being sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. However also note that the some of these citations are often being used to cite the "positions/opinions" of FRM supporters/critics for example, so that WP:SELFQUEST comes into play too. --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, and to answer another of your questions, I gave up editing this page because of the resistance of pro-FRM editors to the use of scholarly resources such as . Unfortunately there is a preference to use this article as a soapbox (for and against) and to use advocacy texts such as Baskerville etc extensively. And you only need to read the comments on this page to see the extent of the problem: several editors believe that scholarly opinions that somehow "belittle" or are in "opposition of the movements actions" should not be included at all. --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{Bing!}Horse pucky, scholarly sources are always the best choice for all articles. If you're talking about UNDUE regards the ELs, UNDUE does cover links as well (last sentence, second paragraph, "This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well"). If Flood's work is mainstream and scholarly, I still think those former links are better as sources - as a brief web-page and a paragraph, they'd easily be integrated if there's anything worth saying I think. Schafly (of Conservapedia fame?) is out unless published in a reliable source. I've not the time right now or in general to really look into it, but I'll see if I can make the time. Baskerville seems very over-cited throughout the page and the use of citation templates in general is quite poor. I'll try to address if I've the time. WLU (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes: I am not arguing in any way for the return of the external links section, and instead am looking at reliable sourcing for the article itself. I agree that integrating important points and references into the article is to be preferred. As you say, and as I have argued here in the past, scholarly sources are clearly the best choices; unfortunately at one point the endless objections about any addition from them that could possibly be construed as anti-FR became too tedious. "Pro" edits from the same sources were welcomed, of course! Some fresh, independent eyes are always welcome; a pruning and a reworking seems in order to me, as well as improvements to the citation style that you mention.Slp1 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal Changes section

Michael H has restored this section that I deleted yesterday claiming that it is not based on US information alone. Actually it is a classic example of Original Research and Synthesis entirely based on US court cases and as such doubly inappropriate. Please do not restore it without getting consensus here that it is an appropriate addition.Slp1 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the information had not been cited, it would have been removed for this reason. Since the information had been cited, it had to based on the law of some country. I disagree that the information is relevant to the US only, and removed the sentences that applied only to the US. Even if you are correct that this is OR and SYN, it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article. The information is clearly and obviously relevant background information, and more than one person believes this to be true because I am not the original contributor of this information. I am restoring it. Please do not delete this information without getting a consensus that the cited information should be removed. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually Original research is a non-negotiable core policy of Misplaced Pages and thus "it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article" is 100% incorrect. Note the nutshell version of this policy "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", which this does: all the references are to court decisions, and there is not a single secondary or tertiary source making the claims in the paragraph.WP:PSTS And since US Court decisions only apply to the US, and Common Law is only used in certain parts of the world (ex British colonies in the main) then this section also does not represent a global perspective as we need to do in this article. I will leave you to remove the section this time; if you insist on maintaining your position that this original synthesis of primary sources is appropriate for the article I am certainly happy to post an inquiry on No original research noticeboard and get the opinion of other editors. And note also that I am not the only one who disagrees with this text being added. (and see her post above). --Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements in the citations like "i.e., no longer requiring courts of criminal jurisdiction for divorce. And to confirm this assertion", the use of court cases as sources (court cases would be primary documents), the gross over-focus on the United States (WP:CSB), improper directions like "For additional information about changes in the law, please see "No-fault divorce" below." and the statement "Even if you are correct that this is OR and SYN, it is appropriate to ignore these rules in order to improve the article" all suggest a revert is in order. Done. WLU (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is clear. Removing the information is okay by me. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Parents Rights

"Yet a recent Urban Institute study found that the Smith case typifies the way the foster care system harms children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers. " Michael H 34 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H's recent edits

Once again, Michael H has taken upon himself to delete well-sourced information from highly reliable sources without discussion, apparently because he does not agree with the content, etc. Note this edit summary in particular, which "(Fathers can't be parents? Why?)" He also claims the several of the additions are "unsourced" or "not attributed" which they clearly are, given the citations following. If there are dead links, then that does not justify deletion of the information as he appears to claim here. Where does it say in any policy or guidelines that reliable sources should be removed because the number of citations given introduces bias? Unfortunately this is not the only page where these problems of editing (COI, POV, Original reserch) have surfaced. See for example but there are others. Michael, please restore the well-sourced material you deleted. It may be that the phrasing of some could be improved to increase ease of understanding. It is clear, for example, that you are misunderstanding some of the sentences, and I am sure we can make them clearer if that it is the case. But let's discuss the problems here first. Wholesale deletion of well-sourced information from scholarly texts is not the answer. --Slp1 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have shown that Richard Collier's opinions are quoted and supported by critics of the fathers' rights movement. Roger Gay has stated that he is biased. You claim that Richard Collier's work is scholarly. That is your opinion and I disagree with you.

If Richard Collier states that fathers are encouraged by the government to have more contact with their children, then he doesn't even know what the fathers' rights movement is. In my opinion, several of the edits that you made are very confusing for readers of this article. Just because a sentence exists in a book (scholarly or not) doesn't mean that the sentence is relevant for an article.

The opinion that men are not interested in custody of their children is stated twice in this article.

The idea that fathers love their children is not mentioned. I recall that on this page, you have written that such a statement would be too biased for this article. 63.107.135.125 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

With all due respect, Michael...

• Collier and Sheldon are academics; their book is the result of an academic conference held at the Keele University ; it was published by Hart Publishing, a publisher of academic law books based in Oxford and according to WorldCat is held at 173 University libraries around the world . I think it is beyond doubt that this book is a reliable academic source, but if you really disagree, make a post at WP:RSN and I will be happy to abide by the result.
• "If Richard Collier states that fathers are encouraged by the government to have more contact with their children, then he doesn't even know what the fathers' rights movement is." "Roger Gay has stated that ] is biased." Your personal opinion of Collier and his ideas is irrelevant as is that of electrical engineer-come-fathers' rights activist Roger Gay, who, you will remember got blocked here for disruptive, POV pushing edits And your disagreement with Collier's opinion/ideas doesn't give you the license to delete them. The key policy here is WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".
• You are on stronger ground when you say that the information in the article needs to be relevant and clear. I absolutely fail to see how the sourced sections such as I added are not relevant but as I mentioned above, I am open to the idea that they need to be clearer. Once again, deleting them is not the solution this problem. Explain what is confusing on the talkpage and editors can work together to clarify the text.
• "The opinion that men are not interested in custody of their children is stated twice in this article". Please state your evidence for this; I don't see this opinion stated anywhere at all. But anyway, big deal, if it is sourced reliably. What is your policy-based issue with having a statement like this in the article twice? Personally disagreeing with it is not enough. Once again "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".
• "The idea that fathers love their children is not mentioned". No it isn't, because including such a truism would be a classic example of the use of a rhetorical device to advocate a POV and thus totally contrary to WP policy. WP is not a place where you can do this, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and after 21 months on WP you must surely know this. --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Big deal? Just because a sentence exists in a book (scholarly or not) doesn't mean that the sentence is relevant for an article. The key Misplaced Pages policy is not verifiability, it is consensus.

I consider the unexplained and indefensible statement: "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be an extreme pollution of this article and by far the worst edit that I have ever encountered in all of my experience with Misplaced Pages, vandalism included. Michael H 34 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Where on earth do you get the idea that consensus is Misplaced Pages's key policy? It isn't. It is one of five policies about how to work (or not to work) with others. And then there are the four policies about content, which is what we are actually talking about here, as well as two global ones. In fact, even if you did, for example, get a consensus about something on this talk page it does not and cannot overrule the wider consensus about policies such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc that have been determined by the site. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale".WP:CON

Like I said, it is irrelevant whether you find the statement ""Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be "indefensible", "an extreme pollution" or the "worst edit" ever, unless you can produce some policy-based reasons for your objection to it.

I will, however, try to explain briefly the sentence more clearly to you.

In the 19th and early 20th century separation and divorce was possible but only on the grounds of matrimonial fault (violence, adultery etc) and at the beginning of this period giving custody to fathers was generally assumed. With time this tendency weakened with the "ideology of mother love", and during the early years of the 20th century it gradually became assumed that mothers would get custody (though not always if the mother had committed some 'fault' eg. adultery). Women forever remained economically dependent and tied to men after divorce during this period.

From about 1960s onward things changed: divorce was more easily available and increased dramatically and living together became more common. The concept of the "clean break" or "no fault" divorce arose, with the idea that people could and should move on from mistakes and be able to start again with their lives. As compared to pre-1950s law, (and it is this comparison that is important) the family law which developed from the 1960s on introduced these 'clean break' notions into law. But these "clean break" legal changes also affected fathers contact with their children. They gave the (financial, emotional??) ability and license for women who wished to have limited contact with their former husbands to have a "clean break" and do just that. And vice versa of course. However, countries also introduced increasingly extensive legal means to force fathers to pay child support payments in arrears, requiring in a very practical way, fathers to be involved with their children that they might not be seeing. Laws have also moved towards trying to get parents to sort out disagreements themselves rather than using the courts and to interpret the "best interest of the child" doctrine to mean that the child needs regular access to both parents. Once again the law and legal regulation have in theory at least increased the expected role of fathers as compared to pre-1950s law.

I don't necessarily expect you to agree with this because I am sure it is not your own, probably very painful, experience. But we are not writing about your personal experience but about the reasons why the fathers rights movement arose. Hopefully you understand that there is thinking and evidence behind the statement given. It has been sourced to an reliable academic source. There have been changes in legal regulations which expect fathers to be more involved, though perhaps not as much as you would desire, or in the ways you would desire, I'm guessing. --Slp1 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I agree that Verifiability is not Misplaced Pages's key policy.

My personal experiences are irrelevant, and I consider any suggestions that I am writing "about my personal experiences" (I have never been divorced and I live with my wife and children) as an attempt to diminish the weight of my views, similar to the attempt (above) to diminish the weight of Roger Gay's view through name calling.

I continue to consider the phrase: "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers" to be an awful and inappropriate edit for this article. Changes in legal regulations have separated fathers and children.

In fact, you removed from this article some of the changes in law that are pertinent to the eventual formation of the fathers' rights movement.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" does not explain how "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved."

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" is inappropriate because legal regulations do not expect anything. Legal regulations, such as no-fault divorce, can create or reinforce societal norms.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" (the same legal regulations that provide for "visitation time") has not been connected to "the reasons why the fathers' rights movement arose." I have strong concerns that such a connection would be the result of synthesis, and that such a connection would be given undue weight.

The statement you added to the article which included: "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" is based on a point of view and it is unattributed. This point of view implies that men have been less involved with their children, and that men would "break clean" from their children in the absence of legal regulations. The point of view is biased against fathers and biased for government regulations.

The "war" on fathers, marriage and the family and the emergence of the fathers' rights movement is the result of outcomes associated with changes in legal regulations that allow fathers (and some mothers) to be separated from their children, and this article would be greatly improved if this idea was made perfectly clear to the reader. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

• First let me apologize for incorrectly guessing the reason for your strong opinions on this article. I am very sorry for my error.
• Second, I also apologize for misleading you above when I said "the key policy here is verifiability". I used "key" in the sense of "most relevant" and "here" as "in this situation", and was trying to convey "the most relevant policy in this situation is verifiability", not that verifiability is the "key" policy on WP as a whole. I have only just realized the ambiguity of my remark.
• Third, yes I did delete a chunk of US-centric Original Research and synthesis, and when you reverted User:WLU deleted it again, concurring with my view that it was inappropriate. See for details
• Fourth, the disputed sentence is "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers at a time when, in certain ways, it is more difficult for them to do so due to increased divorce and separation. refs given Collier, R; Sheldon S (2006). Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective. Hart Publishing and Unfamiliar territory: The issue of a father's rights and responsibilities covers more than just the media-highlighted subject of access to his children, The Guardian,2006-11-01. It is not clear to me why you quote part of this sentence and then provide four criticisms of a phrase "legal regulations expect fathers to be more involved" that has never been suggested for inclusion. To respond as best I can therefore...

Comment 1: You would like more explanation of the legal changes? Here are some useful references, all of which support the idea that the post 1950s legal changes including no-fault and best interests of the child legislation (among others) changed the assumption regarding the participation of fathers in bringing up their children as compared to previous legislation

• Divorce in Psychosocial Perspective: Theory and Research, Josef Guttmann, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1993)
• Silent Revolution, Herbert Jacob, University of Chicago Press 1988
• The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform, Martha Fineman, University of Chicago Press, 1991
• Changing Families, Changing Responsibilities: Family Obligations Following Divorce and Remarriage, Lawrence H. Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999

Comment 2. The proposed sentence doesn't include the word "expect", so your comment objecting to the word appears moot.

Comment 3. It could only be original synthesis if I had put two separate sources together to form a new original thought or idea. But I didn't. The entire thought comes from Collier and Sheldon, "The convergence of cultural and legal exhortations for men to be more involved fathers with the greater fragility of their connections to their children is one which has ploughed fertile ground for the growth of fathers' rights agendas." Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective p12 and The findings of therapeutic, psychological and sociological research suggest a qualitative shift in many men's emotional relationships with their children and commitments to "family life". Society is demanding that men become more involved as fathers precisely at a time when, in certain respects, it is more difficult for them to do so. The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations. from the Guardian article. You will also note both connect these comments directly to the issue of fathers' rights movements and why it has grown and developed.

Comment 4: the actual proposed sentence "Men are encouraged, by society and by legal regulation, to be more involved as fathers at a time when...." is, contrary to what you say, carefully attributed to two scholars in the field, and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available" WP:V. Your other critiques appear to be related to the sentence not even proposed for inclusion.

Your final comment was"The "war" on fathers, marriage and the family and the emergence of the fathers' rights movement is the result of outcomes associated with changes in legal regulations that allow fathers (and some mothers) to be separated from their children, and this article would be greatly improved if this idea was made perfectly clear to the reader. Sadly I believe this comment cuts to the quick of this dispute about your deletion of well-sourced sentences; your ongoing desire (despite protests here and on other talkpages by several editors) to promote your POV about the Fathers' rights movement and other related subjects. We are not and cannot be a soapbox for you to make anything "perfectly clear to the reader" about the ""war" on fathers, marriage and the family."

I think it is time for a third opinion --Slp1 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, you apologized for the wrong reason. You could have apologized for trying to diminish the weight of my view based on irrelevant suppositions. Yet, you have now accused me of using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox...to make 'perfectly clear to the reader'", which in my view is an improvement of the article, and something that I am encouraged to do. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please read what I wrote above. "I don't necessarily expect you to agree with this because I am sure it is not your own, probably very painful, experience". It has nothing to do with the weight of your views on this article, and everything to do with trying to show some understanding/empathy for what might lead you to have difficulty accepting more mainstream views of divorce law etc. Misplaced it appears, but it was kindly meant.

And yes, I do think that while it is an admirable goal to make this article as clear as possible, it is notc appropriate to seek to use WP to attempt to mold this article to your personal opinions by arguing to include original research and synthesis because it "improves the article" (see ), deleting sourced information you dislike as we have been discussing above, and introducing your own commentary and opinions as noted in the edit I discuss immediately below this.--Slp1 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In this edit Michael claims to be deleting bias because "men's relationships with their children have not always been fragile". Not only does this passage not state that men`s relationships with their children have ever been fragile, but in fact he is deleting the sourced opinions of the "Other commentators" mentioned at the start of the sentence and apparently introducing his own opinion that demographic changes etc have "separated fathers and children". His error is somewhat understandable given the fact there were no citations for that section of the article at the time of his edit. He had deleted them here as part of the disputed deletions above. I have restored the sourced opinion --Slp1 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I ask rhetorically, Why did you attempt to diminish the weight of my views by stating that I am not "mainstream?"

It is not "opinion" that divorce has separated fathers and children.

I replaced the words "men's relationships" with "fathers' bonds", which more accurately reflected the cited authors' words: "paternal bonds." Michael H 34 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you for accepting the apology and for your useful recent edit to the article. I won't be drawn into the Strawmen arguments and misleading rhetorical question in the rest of your post. I have never stated that you are not "mainstream", and discussing the truth (or otherwise) of the statement "divorce separates fathers and children" is not relevant or necessary for our purposes. The issue with that edit, as you know, was that you introduced unsourced information into the article.--Slp1 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of precision above. I agree that you did not call me "not mainstream." You stated that the viewpoints of others are "more mainstream." It is with respect and kindness that I note that what you consider to be "more mainstream" is based on your point of view. 63.107.135.125 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Not really, I'm afraid; the "more mainstream" view of the history of divorce law can be determined more empirically than you suggest, by consulting multiple reference texts and books and seeing what they say, just as I did above. But this is off topic, I fear.--Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Collier is not "more mainstream." Roger Gay already noted above that Richard Collier argues against fathers' rights. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Please read what I say. I didn't mention Richard Collier; I said that I consulted multiple reference texts about the history of divorce law. The references I consulted are linked to above.--Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All of the controversial edits (these edits introduced extreme bias into the article in my view and Roger Gay's view) are sourced by Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon.

• the unclear "new victims" phrase introduced bias
• the completely unexplained phrase "when they cannot" introduced innuendo about fathers (at least this innuendo was removed through clarification)
• the still unexplained and confusing phrase about how "legal regulations" encourage fathers to become more involved as parents 63.107.135.125 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

And yet it is interesting, isn't it, that there is other information in this article cited to Collier and Sheldon book that you have no objection to. There is material you like of theirs and material you don't. Isn't it possible that they, as academics, may have a more neutral, nuanced view of the movement, than you, as an admitted supporter does? But if your issue really is the clarity of the sentences, then, as I have said several times above, let's work on doing that just that. --Slp1 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles by Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally in The Guardian promote a POV that family policy favored fathers - i.e. that fathers' rights activists are merely complaining that their advantageous positions w.r.t. family policy have been diminished. This is a biased pov from a source that (according to my read of the reliable source discussion related to this article) is not classified as a reliable source. The inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov. Rogerfgay 13:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

...the article cited expresses a clear bias that has been transferred into the Misplaced Pages article. An article characterizing the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias. Rogerfgay 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael H 34 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Once Roger Gay as become an "established expert on the topic of the article" by having relevant work "published by reliable third-party publications" WP:V we can include his original research and opinion in the article. But not now. Sorry.--Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SLP1's opinion here is dismissive of the opinion of another editor. Furthermore it is not appropriate for you to accuse me of molding this article. I refrain from saying the same about you. It is unwelcoming. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Dismissive, perhaps. But with good reason, I fear. Roger Gay's opinions that reliably sourced academic viewpoints should not be included in the article because he finds them a "biased pov" is totally contrary to WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. And his statement that "the inclusion of that pov in the article is not npov" is a total non-sequitur in WP terms. --Slp1 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to state that society "encourages fathers to be more involved...", but it is absolutely absurd POV that legal regulations establishing no-fault divorce, the best interest of the child standard based on decisions made by government officials rather than parents, and one-parent custody with visitation for the other parent can be painted as "encouraging fathers to be more involved..." because some 14% "visitation" time, rather than zero visitation time, is "fobbed" (the description I have seen used by one member of the fathers' rights movement) on fathers.

Stephen Baskerville has proposed that the influence of social engineers on government policy be reduced, and Richard Collier, the author of the proposed POV edit, is considered a social engineer.

I question why this edit should be included in this article. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael H 34 has reverted the edit of User: Advocate70, an independent editor (and a WP:Third Opinion giver apparently,) who had restored some of the disputed content determining that it was well sourced and reliable. In his edit summary Michael claims again that he is removing bias. In fact, what he has done, yet again, is to remove the clearly attributed and sourced opinions of a reliable academic source (Collier and Sheldon) The sentence even begins "They also view....." Michael, you cannot delete attributed opinions that you consider biased from the article. Read the sentence carefully... nobody is saying that C and S are right in their opinions but they do have the right to their opinion in this article. You cannot delete content because you disagree with their opinions. Note this from WP:NPOV policy "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." --Slp1 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I politely disagree.

I am encouraged to delete extremely bad content. Including an edit simply because it is reliably sourced is what is completely not justified. It is indefensible. The edit that was removed was insufficiently attributed, extremely vague and as a result, extremely confusing for readers.

Whether or not I disagree with Collier's opinion about legal regulations is irrelevant. I disagree with Michael Flood's opinions, but I made them more clear to the reader. Michael Flood's opinions are well attributed.

A series of edits, all based on the same source (Collier and Sheldon), have been very questionable.

• the unclear "new victims" phrase introduced bias about fathers
• the completely unexplained phrase about fathers in a previous version of the proposed edit: "...legal regulations encourage fathers to parent when they cannot." introduced innuendo and bias about fathers into the article (To be fair, at least this innuendo has been removed in the proposed edit through clarification. However, a prior version of the proposed edit had no attribution for the opinion.)
• The proposed edit is still extremely vague with respect to how legal regulations encourage. It is indefensible.

The proposed edit is horrible. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 Michael H 34 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I am unclear what you are saying, Michael. Are you saying that you "politely disagree" with WP policy? Because you have responded to a quote from NPOV saying that you cannot simply delete sourced content on "pov" grounds, (and in this case even clearly indicated as an opinion) by saying you and politely disagree and immediately (yet again) that the disputed sentences are biased (ie of POV). You also mention that the sentences are unclear, which is reasonable. Once again, if clarity is really your concern we can work on that.

BTW I note that User: Advocate70 has restored his/her edit. I agree with this as it is a reliably sourced, notable academic view. Please do not delete it again.--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I politely disagree with you. Verifiability does not trump all other Misplaced Pages policies. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Another strawman. Who said it did? --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you never said this. However, based on your comments on this page, I personally believe that this is your view. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I have reworked the section. The proposed edit has been retained in a more acceptable form. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Acceptable to you but not to me, unfortunately. Collier and Sheldon are not sociologists but law professors. I have reworked the sentence again to fit the sources given. Since these comments are to be attributed to them specifically, let's have their views. BTW, I find it fascinating that attribution to specific authors is required by you for many of the ideas you consider critical (e.g. Collier, Sheldon, Flood, Coltrane etc), while pro-father's rights writers, such Baskerville, are often allowed to opine on the subject without attribution at all.

I have deleted this addition , which can be found here . The book is not referring to the FRM at all at this point, and is instead talks about the increased interest in custody among men. I don't doubt, personally, that the two are related, but the authors don't make that connection so neither can we. It would be WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNT to include this commentary. The edit was a word for word copy of the original text, making it a copyright violation too, though of course this could be easily fixed if it wasn't for the Original Research problem. --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Frustration restored instead of dissonance: dissonance means inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs. Neither is really present here. The authors characterize fathers as having uniform beliefs and a desire to have uniformity between their beliefs and their actions, but they are prevented in the second case by factors caused by legal and social structures. It is this frustration and its subsequent motivation of the movement to which the authors refer. I think that word gives a better sense of the author's thrust.

As for the no-fault proposal, I think that is quite interesting and adds much to the article, Michael H, consider restoring it.--2008Olympian _chitchat 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Advocate/Olympian (you had me confused there!). I was trying to fix an otherwise unwieldy sentence, actually removing the unwieldly part and keeping the "frustration" works just fine.--Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael H. You might want to read WP:LEAD. The lead is the place to summarize the article, not an introduction. So all the discussion about civil rights vs social movements and your latest edit are not appropriate for the lead since they aren't mentioned in the text. The lead must of course also be of NPOV, which in my view it clearly isn't at present, particularly with your latest addition. BTW, I think it is too bad that you reverted Advocate70 again here --Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is well attributed and therefore the article retains a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34 I have moved the new sentence from the lead. However, the discussion about civil rights vs social movements is necessary for the lead. It is the definition of the article.Michael H 34 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I welcome Advocate70's input. The stylistic changes in this edit reduced the neutrality of the article in favor of fathers' rights through the change in attribution. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Question about WP 3O request

A request for a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion was listed four days ago. Has this dispute been resolved by the participants or should it remain listed? (I will watchlist this page for replies.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would still very much like a third opinion.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that Michael H 34's 21:49 UTC through 22:41 UTC (inclusive) 14 September 2008 edits comply with this encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy rather than appearing to argue from the position of advocacy of the view of any organization (for example, "state" conveys the neutrality which "point out" does not).

I have read the discussion above and, frankly, if anyone asked me for a concise summary of the past ten days' dispute, I could not provide one, but the MH edits I have reviewed look encyclopedic to me.

If either or both of you wish to post a brief summary (no more than one or two sentences each) of any unresolved aspects of the dispute, please do so below. — Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I suppose it might have been easier if someone had dropped by a bit faster when I actually posted the third opinion request! Oh well. One of the initial deletions of material appears resolved. Remaining is the question of whether the material in these deletions should be restored. They appear to be well-sourced and in fact I can add another academic reference to support the first of the two. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The original issue has been resolved. The phrase "...legal regulations encourage fathers to be more involved as parents" was extremely vague, highly biased, confusing for readers and absolutely completely unnecessary for the primary point of the sentence. In my commentary, I noted that legal regulations are a part of society. The original edit also lacked attribution.

Summary of the new issues - I apologize that this is more than two sentences

I was responsible for this edit: I believe that this edit was a good one.

The phrase "family law has swung to far" is overly vague and adds nothing to the article. Nearly a year ago on this page, editor Roger Gay also objected to this phrase noting that " the battle for fathers' rights as a reaction to diminished advantage shows extreme bias." It turns out that the source for the sentence, Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon, are law professors.

The phrase "new victims" is particularly objectionable. It is belittling of father' rights and highly biased. It implies that members of the fathers' rights groups claim victimhood, a very loaded phrase. It is unbelievable to me that members of fathers' rights groups state something that would imply that they claim victimhood. In my view, the sentence includes false attribution. Fathers' rights groups do not claim that they are the new victims (and all that these loaded words imply). I have noted that verifiability does not trump all other Misplaced Pages policies and therefore I ask editors, what is the purpose of including this phrase?

It is ironic to me that Slp1 deleted a well-sourced sentence about women in the fathers' rights movement in the very same edit that Slp1 states that well-sourced material should be restored based on the fact that it is well sourced. It is additionally ironic because I have not seen any other reason for including the "new victim" sentence except for its verifiability.

The American Coalition of Fathers and Children, the largest shared parenting group in the world, was founded by a woman and I have read that about half of its members are women.

The sentence implying a "diminished advantage for fathers" and "these groups are claiming victimhood" besides being biased add no value to the article and in my view, the sentence should not be included. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is the other edit that Slp1 has asked for a third party opinion: not this one from above, in which two intermediate versions are not shown. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually Michael, I did not delete the information about women in the movement. Look carefully at the bottom of the edit you deleted, it was always there.--Slp1 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you did not delete the information about women in the movement, and I apologize for my mistake. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The crux of the question as far as I am concerned is whether claims of "bias" or "not adding anything" etc by an editor is enough to delete the analysis of multiple academics from reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, verifiability does not trump all other Misplaced Pages policies. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Once again, nobody has said it does. In fact, WP:V is the least of it. There's WP:NPOV "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV", and "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source"; there's WP:NOR which says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers"which these references all are. And finally there is WP:SOAP "an article can report objectively about , as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." You have cannot simply delete reliably sourced information, just because you view it as "biased". --Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I relisted the dispute for further attention from other WP:3O volunteers. — Athaenara ✉ 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes

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

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed law articles
• Unknown-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics