Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 18 July 2009 (→Verifiability/Sourcing/Attribution/Undue: cool, good stuff). 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:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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

Start to March, 2007 March, 2007 to October, 2007 October, 2007 to present 4, 5, 6, 7 - empty

Deletions of well-sourced material

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

• "Membership of the fathers' rights movement is primarily composed of white, middle class or working class, heterosexual men, who tend to be politically conservative". Edit summary: "Not in Messner citation and undue weight"

response: there were three citations given, not just one as the edit summary implies; Messner states "FR activists who are predominately white, middle or working class...."; Parker and Brott say that they "tend to be politically conservative, but share no single set of political views"; and Crowley devotes an entire chapter of her book on the sociodemographic analysis of the movement; it is not available online, but her detailed findings support the statement above; an interview with her confirming this in part at least can be found here One sentence about the composition of the FR movement is a significant aspect of this article, can hardly be described as undue weight, has been well sourced from multiple highly reliable sources, and should not be deleted without consensus obtained here on the talkpage.

• two sentences about different branches and political views of FR activists; edit summary: "Undue weight - an unimportant dilution of the article"

response: if it is so unimportant and a dilution then why would this issue be mentioned by at least 4 reliable, mainstream academic sources in their discussions of the movement? Once again, get a consensus from other editors for the deletion of this well-sourced material, notable material. Note that I believe it should be included, as presumably does User:WLU who moulded it into its current form, as well as User:pfhorrest, who responded to a third opinion request about this issue. --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael H has deleted the well-sourced material again, without responding to any of the concerns expressed here, and without an edit summary. I will give a certain period for him to explain or revert himself, and if there is no response will again request a third opinion on this matter, unless any other editor feels like giving their opinion in the interim.--Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Once again, material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced. At least these edits are not of the type: "men are encouraged to be fathers when they can't." However, there is no value in including these sentences, and this is the main reason why they were deleted. They were deleted to improve the article.

(1) The "primarily white, middle-class, men..." was cherry-picked from a sentence written by Messner, who was making a different point, possibly to justify the way that fathers are treated. (In other words, it's okay for society to treat fathers the way it does because men are privileged.)

(2) "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." is not necessarily true for fathers' rights groups in certain countries, and thus is overly general. The statement is not merely US-centric, but it is certainly centric to something and it is therefore exclusionary.

(3) In regions where "primarily white, middle-class..." is true, it is also true for many, many, many other groups as well. In regions where the statement is true, these characteristics are not something that is specific to or distinguishes members of the fathers' rights movement from the population as a whole. The statement adds no value.

(4) "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." conflicts with another source which states that half of the members of the fathers' rights movement are women. I note that Messner did not provide a source for his assertion "primarily white, middle-class, men...", whose main point was to assert that men are privileged, but the authors of the statement that half of the members of the fathers' rights movement are women had access to membership data for the largest shared parenting organization in the world. I understand that the person who founded this organization was a woman. "Primarily white, middle-class, men..." is given undue weight.

(5) "differing viewpoints on how women and men compare" is something that is also true for the population as a whole and is therefore not something that is specific to or distinguishes members of the fathers' rights movement. It is given undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

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

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

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

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

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

Today, men's issues--principally fathers' issues--are where many of our nation's biggest gender inequities lie. And just as many men helped the women's movement, many women are stepping forward to help fathers, forming groups like Moms for Dads and the Second Wives Crusade. Today women make up half of the membership of the fathers' movement. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

You need something more authoritative than an opinion column from a father's rights activist (which can only be used with caution and not for this sort of statement of fact) to contradict several academics, including one empirical study. And yes, well-sourced from multiple high quality academic sources is a reason for inclusion, and almost a requirement for inclusion per NPOV, particularly when no valid contradictory sources have even been provided. --Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(Slp1 just stated that Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson are fathers rights activists and therefore their statement of a "fact" is "not valid.)

The sentence from the article is clearly factually incorrect. "Primarily male, white, heterosexual, (tend to be) conservative." When you multiply the percentages of male (not even a majority according to two notable leaders of the FRM) x white (majority but US-centric and clearly less than 100%) x heterosexual (majority but less than 100%) x (tend to be conservative) hardly a majority (and at odds with politically diverse), you do not get a result that can be called a majority, and the word primarily is factually incorrect. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

MH24 Slp1 just stated that Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson are fathers rights activists and therefore their statement of a "fact" is "not valid. No, I didn't. Checking the link, you will see that per opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are not considered reliable sources for statement of facts. It has nothing to do with whether they are FR activists or not, and everything to do with the issue of the reduced fact checking given to such columns.--Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the "primarily white male" edit, is based on a US-study is US-centric and most importantly, the sentence is not relevant (especially the term white) because it does not distinguish the FRM from the US population in general. For this reason it is clearly given undue weight. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The four reasons ignore the fact that "primarily white, middle-class men" is justified by three sources, nearly verbatim. You don't get to remove it because you did some original research using random calculations and what you believe to be common sense. That "material is defended simply because it is called well-sourced" boggles my mind as an objection - well-sourced material is what the page should be built on. Otherwise, we're left with random opinions and calculations devised according to what we want them to say. Glenn Sacks is indeed publishing an opinion column in a self-published source and it astonishes me that this could be defended as a reliable alternative to publications by scholarly press like Cornell University Press, Rowman & Littlefield and ABC-CLIO. If you really feel strongly about the strength of Glenn Sacks column, I suggest bringing it up at WP:RSN. Slp1's comment is better interpreted as saying "Glenn Sacks column asserts his opinion that is contradicted by actual studies". It's not because Glenn Sacks is asserting a flawed fact that it doesn't get to stand, it is because Glenn Sacks is not asserting a fact - he is asserting his opinion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sacks cites no statistics, no source of this assertion, in an article with minimal fact checking and overview that make a source reliable, so it should be presented as his opinion. Despite this, there is merit to including it unless one of the other sources contradicts it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The statistic cited was one half. The coauthor of the article, Dianna Thompson, is a past President of ACFC and had access to membership information. Did the scholarly sources provide numerators and denominators? Michael H 34 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

That's not a statistic, that's a factoid opinion with no description of how it was gathered. Were the claims current? Was there a date given when the statistics were gathered? What kind of oversite does the Star Tribune have? Do they check stats? Did she have current access? They are barely-even footing as far as reliability, and I'm sure RSN would be happy to give a lengthier assessment. It's fine as is. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with the inclusion of the Sacks' and Thompson's claim. Why are we giving such weight to an opinion column published by two fathers' rights activists, who don't give any information about where they got this figure? We already have a sentence about women's involvement in the FRM (at the end of the paragraph) sourced to much higher quality academic and media sources, including an empirical study by Crowley, whose study found percentages at 85% men and 15% women which directly contradicts their claim. In addition, to all of the other books, summaries etc, there is this academic study which investigated FRGs and described that "women occasionally joined the groups". I don't think it warrants inclusion; we have lots of much better sources and should be aiming to move as much as possible towards the higher quality sources per WP:V.--Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it appears "Mom for Dads", the specifically pro-FR's mother's group cited in the article, probably disappeared soon after the article was written.. This is original research, of course, but I think supports my view that there is a significant danger this 7 year old opinion column about one of the the FRM 'talking points' is being given undue unweight currently.--Slp1 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My support for inclusion was based on not seeing specific stats or research in the sources I reviewed. With sources that directly contradict the assertion, it should be removed. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#News_organizations - "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion - "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Misplaced Pages article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

Given the fact that this opinion piece is contradicted by an actual reliable source, we shouldn't put it in no matter what. Objecting to the edit because you don't like it is inappropriate. It is verifiable that the statement exists in an actual reliable source, so some opinion column doesn't get press. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RSN posting. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The one-half statistic was questioned in part because information about how it was derived was not included in the article. Did Crowley provide the numerator and denominator and any other information about how the 15% female statistic was derived? Michael H 34 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is a trifle moot, since independent editors here at the RSN posting concur that the inclusion of the opinion column information is not justified in this article. Only part of the objection to the objection to the "one half" claim is related to its lack of derivation; the major one is and has always been that we privilege high quality academic sources; Op-ed pieces are not considered reliable sources of fact, most especially when they are directly contradicted by the academic research. In fact, the information you request has been available for a long time in the sources I have cited in the article and on this talkpage. Can you provide the same information about methodology for the Sacks statistics? But like I said, this seems a moot point given the comments here and at the RSN noticeboard and especially since nobody is actually proposing including the specific 85-15% breakdown in the article.--Slp1 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot provide the same information about the methodology for the Thompson/Sacks statistic. I merely noted that as President of ACFC, Dianna Thompson had access to membership information. Based on your response, I'll check the sources. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I question the Gavanas citation as a source for the "primarily white male" sentence. Perhaps I did not find the sentence that was used as the source.

Gavanas did not state that members of fathers' rights groups are primarily..., she stated that fathers' rights groups primarily represent....

There was no url for the Crowley citation.Michael H 34 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

No, you would have to get the Crowley book; or you could read her research work in the other journals where she has published it, for example ; but see here and here for her own summary of her results that are web-accessible for you. I actually went over this same territory and provided some of this same material for you in February --Slp1 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

In addition to my objection that "primarily white working class male" is not a distinguishing feature of members of the fathers rights movement among the population of its members, and in addition to the source that casts some doubt on "primarily male", I objected to the significance of this information. Slp1 had asked why do 4 sources include this information. Yesterday I stated that the Gavanas citation should not count as one of the sources since "members are" is not what she wrote. She wrote that FRGs "represent."

This information was not necessarily treated as significant by the Messner source. It was included as a phrase in a sentence in that was about something else.

In addition, I seem to recall that one of the Messner sources cited Gavanas as his source of information.

Thank you for the link to the Crowley source. Michael H 34 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

The Crowley statistic was based on 158 interviews. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"there are multiple sources (not just Messner) (to which I could add) that make the point about the racial and class make up of this movement. "

Of the above, the first is Gavanas, who used the word "represent", and the third cites Crowley. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Based on the above, I removed the Gavanas and Messner sources for the sentence. Although it is contradicted by the newspaper article by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks, the Crowley source supports the statement. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

And I have restored them. This attempt to pick away at academic sources is thoroughly inappropriate and in my view tendentious. Yes, the term Gavanas chooses to use is "represent" presumably for the sake of variety, given that here she is much more explicit. . I will switch it to this one if you would like. Messner is talking about the FRM and makes this claim about them. That's enough. If you don't think that these are reliable sources for the statement made then please go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get agreement there; I will abide by the result.--Slp1 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Page 11 of Gavanas "Despite their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomic advantages in work and the family - both before and after divorce (Messner 1997, 47)." So, it does support it, it was one page further along. So I'll revert for you. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The notability of the information included in the article was questioned. The characteristics added to the article are not distinguishing features among the general population of the countries where many of its members live. The notability of the information is further questionable because currently, the article includes information based on sentences whose primary purpose is something other than the information being added to the article. However, the Gavanas source currently included in the article includes a direct statement, which can be used as a source, but the sentence in the article needs to be amended in order to communicate what Gavanas wrote. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

What do you mean by "notability" in this context? How does removing the reference outright amend a sentence? What amendment would you suggest? What does "The characteristics added to the article are not distinguishing features among the general population fo the countries where many of its members live" mean? Where is your citation to justify this statement, without which it is an opinion of an editor, original research and therefore looks more like POV-pushing than neutral editing? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ec. Who questioned the notability of the sentence? You, I think. That's fine, but unfortunately, when this fact is commented on by multiple high-quality academic sources as a feature of the group, and has also been noted in an empirical study, then you'll need very strong counter-evidence to convince others that it is not "notable" enough for inclusion. But maybe you can; with WLU I urge you to see outside voices through a request for comment or a posting on a noticeboard (e.g. WP:NPOVN if you feel that others will be convinced where we haven't been. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Actually we edit according to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. That means

• Using the highest quality sources reliable sources, in this case academic sources and not opinion columns
• Accurately representing the highest quality sources we have; this means giving appropriate weight to the multiple, academic secondary sources, (including an empirical study) about the composition of the group.
• Observing consensus; which you obviously don't have here and nor did you have at the reliable sources noticeboard] on this matter
• Not engaging in disruptive, fast and slow edit warring or advocacy for your cause.

Your latest addition to the lead does not follow the guidelines because it is not an accurate summary of the information contained in main article; it is referenced by an opinion column (ruled inappropriate by independent editors on RSN), and a book that I am not convinced you have actually read, though please do prove me wrong below.

You have once again deleted a sentence about the composition of the group, this time saying that "we don't source sentences with phrases". In fact there were multiple references given, including one that consists of an empirical study of described in a chapter of this book by a Rutgers professor: a fact I have pointed out several times. I am going to rework the sentence in an attempt to address some of your concerns; and will add solid references. If you still object, please discuss your concerns here, rather than reverting yet again.

Frankly, Michael, I've just about had enough. I'm nearly ready to take up User:WLU's suggestion that your conduct has reached the point where a topic ban or similar is the only real solution to the ongoing tendentious editing. Please step back and consider carefully.--Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here's the source:

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

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

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

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

Here's the problem, Michael.

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

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

At this point, Michael, you are suggesting that Slp1 is actively misrepresenting a source to win a content dispute. Your own sources for your side of the dispute have clearly been shown inadequate by third parties. You're not substantively addressing the points raised by others, and appear to be objecting on aesthetic (i.e. preference) grounds rather than factual grounds. There are four sources for the claim that membership is primarily white heterosexual males; you've removed three of them, and replaced it with a statement that is substantially different from the original well-sourced one ("representing" is different from "composed of"). I can't see any way to make objections clearer, and it is apparent to me that engaging on the talk page has not been helpful despite weeks of trying. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"You're not substantively addressing the points raised by others...."

I'm not the one who sourced a sentence with a phrase from a sentence stating an opinion. I added a replacement sentence which is properly sourced, but if you prefer to delete it, please do so.

I politely request a response to the following questions:

Question 1: Based on Slp1's edit, does the article include a sentence that is sourced by a phrase?

Question 2: Is the phrase that is being used to source the sentence that was added to the article by Slp1 included in a statement of opinion by the authors?

Here's the source:

"Despite their claims for victimhood, men's and fathers' rights advocates are usually white, middle-class, heterosexual men who tend to overlook their institutional and socioeconomic advantages in work and the family - both before and after divorce (Messner 1997, 47)." Michael H 34 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

"since we have two empirical studies saying something different"

Question 3: What DID the authors of these small studies say? Michael H 34 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Question 1: No. As has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over again and over and over againthe edit has been sourced to multiple high-quality independent sources, not just Gavanas. Please stop repeating this "sourced from a phrase" motif which is (a) not true, and (b) irrelevant.

Question 2: see above.

Question 3: I'd need more specifics of exactly what you'd like to know about the studies, but given the topic at hand I can tell you that they both found 85% men and 15% women in the groups, that whitecollar/professionals represented 66-78% of the groups and 87% were Caucasian (Crowley only). Do you have any other empirical studies to offer us, that would contradict these?

Thank you for giving your permission to delete your edit; I will certainly be doing so.

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

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

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

I'm just citing what reliable sources say about FR activists, and what, sad to say, I (and others) have also observed in your editing. But as before I'm always open to new, reliable sources saying something different from those found to date; and you can always seek help at the various noticeboards about WP (e.g. WP:AN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN etc. if you feel that you have a case to make about something. --Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting and simply incorrect summary and referencing is the reason why I consider engaging on the talk page to be a total waste of time at this point. MH34, you either have absolutely no appreciation of what the policies on verifiability and reliable sources mean, or you are deliberately obfuscating. It doesn't matter if it's phrases or whole blocks of text - if it's the best source we have, it's what we represent. In this case, multiple sources all converge on the same thing. The fact that FRM activists object to this information because it makes them look bad is irrelevant, the point is several sources say the same thing and personal preference isn't a reason to remove it from the page. Your quotes do not support your point - do I need to point this out? The sources currently on the page state that the groups are primarily composed of white, middle/working class, heterosexual men, an point your cherry-picked quotes do not contradict in the slightest. That some women are involved in the movement is not under dispute, but it is well supported that those "some women" are wildly outnumbered by the much greater number of men that form the substantial bulk of the movement. I do not believe I can be any clearer, blunter or firmer without using profanity. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why did WLU delete the 30-50%

I deleted the 30-50% because I searched inside the book on Google books version and found no mention of that particular statistic. Please indicate the page number it is found on, it was sourced to any one of eight possible pages in Parke (142 or 148-55) and didn't appear on any of the pages I reviewed. That's why. Please address this point before re-inserting the information. I also object to this fact being involved because I see it as rather meaningless - 30-50% of the phone calls being from women is rather irrelevant, particularly when you're deleting information about membership numbers. That's a separate discussion - assuming the information can be verified,, we can then discuss whether it is appropriate.

As for the "information not being well sourced", that's frankly bullshit. The information from the first set of references was sourced to:

• Haworth Press, which publishes academic and professional books and journals
• Rowman & Littlefield, which also publishes scholarly and academic works
• Journal of Family Issues, an academic journal published by SAGE Publications, an academic publisher of journals and books.

All are equal in wikipedia's eyes to ABC-CLIO which you left in. You also changed "composed of" to "represents", which I've objected to before, you've never replied to, and as I said before, this is a different sense completely. "Represents" in the sentence "Fathers' rights groups in the West primarily represent white, middle or working class, heterosexual men" makes it sound like it's a demographically diverse group of Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian and mixed-race group of heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual men from all different socioeconomic groups that is defending the rights of a bunch of middle-class heterosexual whites. This is not what several sources state, they state that it's composed primarily of white, middle and working class heterosexuals. Very different things.

The second chunk of references you removed were to:

• • Greenwood Press, part of the Greenwood Publishing Group, which is part of ABC-CLIO and also an academic publisher. That's a double-standard that really looks like POV-pushing; why accept ABC-CLIO when you appear to agree with the information, but not when you disagree?
  • Aldine Transaction, an imprint of Transaction Publishers, again specializing in academic publications.

This whole discussion is absurd. There seems to be no reason to remove the text except that you don't seem to agree with it. While we're discussing publishers and reliability, Baskerville, 2007 is used A LOT in the page, 22 times. I don't know much about Cumberland House Publishing, but it seems like a good idea to review its uses and make sure it's not undue weight on a nonscholarly volume. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Father's Rights button

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

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

Verification request

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

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

Since you have edited this page, you must have seen this, so can you provide this information please? Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not add that citation. I restored the sentence based on the article that appeared in the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes you did add the citation, here . And you know that that the Minnesota Star-Tribune is not an adequate source per the WP:RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not the editor who first added the citation to the article. I removed the citation. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Both true, though you did readd it, no? But I appreciate that you did remove it, and alter the sentence that something that can be verified by you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability/Sourcing/Attribution/Undue

• WLU brings up a subject that that I have long been concerned with and have wished to address in this article. . Stephen Baskerville's book (which remains unreviewed by any independent source, as far as I can see) is used to cite large chunks of this article. Very frequently, B's book is given as the one and only source for a statement saying "Members of the Fathers' Rights Movement state...". Baskerville is not "Members (plural) of the FRM" making the sentences unverifiable, and unless there is some evidence that other members of the FRM concur, almost certainly undue weight is being given to the views of this one activist. Baskerville is just one example of a larger article trend that in which what is claimed to be the core views of the FRM have been extrapolated from the many and various opinions expressed on/in fathers' rights activists' websites/speeches/books. Where multiple sources converge on a particular point, this may be reasonable, but where it appears that only one person/group has made the point then there is a strong danger that original research and/or advocacy is taking place, and/or that undue weight is being given to it. I should point out that this problem of verifiability, attribution, undue weight, also applies to some beginning "critics state...". In order to make clear the extent of the problem, I will correctly attribute some of the sections particularly affected, starting from the bottom.
• In my view, the best way of dealing with this issue will be to rework this article to include information sourced to secondary sources (journals, books, newspapers) written about the movement, rather than cherry picking points from material by the movement. It is clear from WP:V and WP:RS that these sources are preferred in writing articles, and luckily it turns out that there are now many academic and research papers and books written about the movement, as well as numerous news and magazine articles discussion the movement's goals and activities.
• It is my intention to begin this process fairly soon. Policy-based comments on this proposal would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Baskerville certainly is not the most reliable of sources - their webpage doesn't appear on the first page of the google search. As far as I can tell, they're part of Sourcebooks, but can't really tell much from that. Certainly doesn't have the impact or reliability of a scholarly publishing house. I've posted a question at the reliable sources noticeboard. I agree that research on the FRM is preferred as a source to research or opinions by the FRM. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Baskerville isn't the best of sources and doesn't have the most impressive publisher, but I do think it is a reliable source; particularly for the opinion of Stephen Baskerville, a prominent American FR activist. My point has less to do with the reliability of the work per se and more to the fact that his views have been presented, over and over again, as core beliefs of the FRM (e.g what Members of the FRM state....), without any evidence that he is speaking for anybody other himself. If you look at his book you will find he is, for the most part, he is making a specific personal argument, and not talking about the FRM or their views at all. This contrasts with academic sources such as Bertoia, Crowley, Gavanas, Collier etc who as academics from a variety of disciplines have stood back, studied multiple FR groups and individuals, analyzed their views, and synthesized the primary positions, attitudes and action points of FR groups. Per WP policy, these kind of secondary sources are to be preferred, rather than picking out points from speeches and books by Baskerville, Schafly etc. We need to include the points that have been noticed by independent sources. That's not to say that the secondary sources won't actually support Baskerville's points. Glancing through Crowley, for example, I note that some points made by Baskerville about no-fault divorce are reported by her to be a frequent viewpoint of members FRM. --Slp1 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are any scholarly sources that agree with Baskerville, I'd certainly substitute. I think Baskerville is adequate for any points that aren't particularly controversial and not otherwise verified, but aside from that it's not a great source. So basically, good changes and good suggestions! WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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