Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 External links 2 Merger 3 Family law and gender 4 1. UK material should go to Fathers' rights movement in the UK 5 PAS 6 What work still needed for NPOV? 7 Quickie: Family Law and the Family Court sub-section 8 Grammar Edits 9 Divorce Rate 10 Portal needed 11 NPOV tag added (again) 12 Needs NPOV, clean-up 13 "Domestic violence" problems 14 Irrelevent/non-contextualized statistics 15 Mother's rights 16 Criticism section

External links

This article has an insane number of external links.. in the interests of keeping Wikipedia from becoming an anything-goes web directory, we need to cut almost all of the links out of this article. It would be best to decide what to keep and delete everything else. This ain't dmoz. Rhobite 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It is apparently well past the Spam Event Horizon. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed all external links with a .com extension, as most of them seemed to have an agenda to sell something or provide legal services (go figure). I also removed a link to Jail for Judges, which seemed to me to be somewhat non-related (and controversial). If any of these links do belong here, I suppose they can be added again, but at least they will be visible in recent changes and can be scrutinized there. I left links to .org and .gov sites, but some of these may also need a good scrubbing. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have culled some dead links and those that blatantly don't meet the WP:EL criteria because they require a login or go to a blog. Left the remaining links but these need review as some seem only marginally relevant. I've put a NoNewLinks template in the section to inform external linkers of the spam problem with this article Decr32 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Family law and gender

This article could be improved by a sharper focus. Some of the material here relating to family law would probably better be place either in that article or in a sparate Family law and gender or similar article. -- Paul foord 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. UK material should go to Fathers' rights movement in the UK

A lot of the detail should go to Fathers' rights movement in the UK, this article should have a summary of the issues. -- Paul foord 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Excellent idea. This is currently being tried over at fox hunting with fox hunting legislation and so far seems to be working... -Rorybowman 23:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Will make the main article less UK centric.

PAS

Whilst PAS is contentious - this article needs to present an assessment - replacement text was total POV - illustrated by the external link to a hate page on Philip Gardner's suicide, the relevance of his suicide here is not explained. -- Paul foord 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What work still needed for NPOV?

Please, would those people involved in earlier discussions review the article and note POV issues to assist future editing (or edit it for NPOV themselves)? If no comment then will remove notice. -- Paul foord 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Quickie: Family Law and the Family Court sub-section

I'm not really sure what the following two paragraphs are trying to say. Could someone who knows the subject re-write them:

"Fathers' rights [campaigners? activists? organisations?] believe family court judges are seen generally as high-minded and impartial. Such judges would thus be faced with difficult decisions and should be commended for acting out this difficult role."

"Governments are often seen as reluctant to change child custody law. Fathers' rights campaigners argue that parents, not legal experts, but the family courts became involved when there are intractable differences between parents who cannot agree on what their children's "best interests" actually are." Paulleake 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Edits

There is plenty in this article that is very confusing and here are some examples:

"This enables parents satisfactorily to agree their own arrangements and a court will accept this."

The above sentence doesn't make any sense and appears to be in the wrong grammatical order. Also who says it is satisfactory? It seems to be missing the word "to" as well as I'm not sure what "to agree their own" means. It makes a bit more sense with "to agree to their own".

"Unfortunately this does not always occur and frequently one or both of the parents appeals to a family court to have the matter resolved."

Because this sentence directly follows the previous example, I don't understand why this "does not always occur" if is it still "satisfactory"? Who finds it unfortunate?

"In continuing existing arrangements in care and income generation from the intact family unit, often these had been implicitly negotiated by the parents and strongly influenced by social mores, fathers' can be denied a significant ongoing role."

The grammar here is not good. For example "continuing" with "existing" sounds redundant, even if it is not meant to be. I would find it easier to understand if said, "current continuing..." instead. "Fathers' " is possessive and is inappropriate, so it should be "fathers." Where does the word "from" come into play? None of those comes "from" the intact family unit, but perhaps is "within" the intact family unit, unless I am misunderstanding what is meant here and that is a distinct possibility because I'm having trouble even understanding what the subject is of this sentence. What kind of care are you talking about? Child care as in day care or caring for the child as in love and attention or diaper changing?

Maybe I'm alone in my thoughts here, but I feel that a grammar overhaul is most definitely needed. I'm not trying to nitpick, but to suggest ways to make it more readable. MagnoliaSouth 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A grammar and style overview is needed. In short, it is bad writing. The article is very POV, also. MollyBloom 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The way the artcle has been chopped, diced, chewed and spat back up numerous times, it's a wonder it remains readable at all. If anyone dared clean it up again it would leave it open to more attack. --Jgda 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In North Dakota, voters rejected a bill that would provide for joint physical custody unless either parent was ruled unfit by clear and convincing evidence, even if parents lived in separate school districts, and reduced most child support payments by a margin of 56% to 43%.

The prior sentence could be improved grammatically. The statistics sited, "56% to 43%", were not included in the bill.

Michael H 34 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Divorce Rate

• I've edited the "Marriage Breakdon" section which claims the US has a divorce rate of 50%. From Wikipedia's Divorce article:

In the United States, in 2003 there were 7.5 new marriages per 1000 people and 3.8 divorces per 1000, a ratio which has existed for many individual years since the 1960s. As many statisticians have pointed out, virtually none of the marriages taking place in a given year are the same couples divorcing that year, so there is in fact no predictive relationship between the two annual totals. Nonetheless the claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" became widely accepted in the US in the 1970s, on the basis of this statistic, and has remained conventional wisdom. Pollster Lewis Harris in his 1987 book "Inside America" wrote that "the idea that half of American marriages are doomed is one of the most specious pieces of statistical nonsense ever perpetuated in modern times."

It seems a little wordy now, but I couldn't figure out how to make it flow more smoothly. I would like to have mentioned if the divorce rate has been rising, but could not find any reliable sources. -DejahThoris 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag added (again)

This page details an on-going dispute over the neutrality of this page. Many NPOV violations have been detailed on this talk page by diligent wikipedeans regarding the biased language and lack of citation which features heavily in this article. As this dispute has not been settled and the NPOV issues not resolved I have had no choice but to reattach the NPOV tag.

Before removing the tag please ensure that you have deleted all content which lacks citation and reworded the article to remove bias. For a start there are the examples highlighted on this talk page, however, the problem is not just limited to them, it permeates the whole (LONG) article.

There has been suggestion on this talk page that criticisms of the father's rights movement (claims of misogyny, anti-feminism etc.) have not been cited. This is true, however, no criticism has actually made it into the article so this issue is NOT a reason for deletion of the NPOV tag/epithet.

Until the above issues (lack of citation and biased language) have been resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of wikipedeans on this talk page please DO NOT remove the NPOV tag.

Many thanks,

Joel

Needs NPOV, clean-up

This article is POV for, well, basically all the reasons given here. It is also excessively long, and in need of a clean-up. NeoApsara 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for a start that Criticism section must be the most strident and excessive piece of POV writing I've seen. Could it be moved to the anti-Fathers' Rights page? --Jgda 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is criticism. It should be critical in whatever way of the subject at hand:. NeoApsara 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is being critiqued. How dare a father think he has rights. This is exactly why an entry for 'fathers rights' needs to exist, and the fact that it is being disputed so aggressively shows the discrimination fathers DO face.

No, the fact that it is being "disputed" shows that this is Wikipedia and just about every entry is fair-game if the crticisms are Wiki-legitimate. Father's Rights won't be exempt simply because "fathers have rights"; its got nothing to do with it.NeoApsara

"Domestic violence" problems

Many domestic violence studies that conclude men and women are equally violent and Father's Rights advocates reject inferences that instill gender politics by portrayal of women as victems and men as perpetrators.

What are the "many" studies and where do they say they reject such "inferences"?

Failure of the courts to prosecute false domestic violence allegations in divorce and custody disputes tends to advocate the tactic of making false domestic violence accusations.

Is there a citation from a study by fathers rights activists, or anybody, about this?

"Thomas Kasper writes in the Illinois Bar Journal, domestic violence measures funded by VAWA readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Is there some sort of link to this, or citation or anything?

Father's Rights and men's rights activists seek to better protect real victems of domestic violence by reducing false accusations

Link/citation?

"and exposing the radical feminist or feminazi tactics to use this topic to advance discrimination and villification of men."

POV. If a fathers rights activist thinks this then it should be noted in a second-hand context with a citation from a father's right activist. However it should not be written as if Wiki accepts there are "femininazis" and that they have tactics. Also, it needs citation. Those links to notes go nowhere.

The topic of Domestic Violence is a key element of Father's Rights [this article]. The feminist, gynocentric, misandrous manipulation of domestic violence propaganda to portray men as perpetrators and women as victems is a central issue that should not be brushed aside to advance feminist POV, especiall within an article on Father's rights.

This isn't a place to get on a soap box nor to accuse editors of advancing an agenda. People will edit things whether they are feminists, mascuilists, communists, fascists, from Saturn, or whatever. With Wiki policy, you cannot just use an encyclopedia to air your opinion with nothing to substantiate it. When you discuss domestic violence and whatnot, there has to be something said by Father's Rights Activists that sufficiently represents them (or contrary studies/whatever that will represent opposing view pioints within the movement) in order to be approrpiate for the article, or if you are going to use epithets and insults then a quote from a noteable person in the movement who used them as atrributing it to WIKI is POV and that goes against policy. Not just somebody who comes on here, makes accusations and throws around labels and name-calling for things that they don't back-up.

I have removed the damaged links, I will research later and add in better links - or others may do this. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

For the time-being, I'm going to fix some spelling errors and whatever name-calling. Some researching Father's Rights who comes on here will not get an appropriate encyclopediac setting with rant-style columns.

ps: you can go to the linked 'domestic violence' article for some of the 'studies' that show men v women are equally violent. [that article is so biased, with feminist pov, it may be hard to find]. Dozens of articles, links, studies, etc under the topics domestic violence and VAWA address the perjoritive nature of the VAWA, which is just as discriminatory on it's face as a 'violence against white's act' would be to blacks. these sites/articles, etc typically include statement that domestic violence is not supported, and 'real' domestic violence should be delt with sternly, but the greater problem is lack of enforcement on perjury or false accusations.

Whatever. It just has to back up what is being said in the article.

this is a 'father's right's' article, but it seems to be controled and edited by feminist spin miesters, just look at the pages of 'criticisms' included here in 'father's rights' and the lack of balanced POV, and key issues such as domestic violence are only presented in the feminist, mysogonist, or gynocentric view. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

--loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

No article on Wikipedia is exempt from a criticism section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Father's Rights soap-box or think-tank. The same goes for feminism, masculism, humanism, etc.NeoApsara

Feminism doesn't have a criticism section. Although I agree with the idea that criticism sections are needed. Zslevi 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminism does have a criticism section. Its called Contemporary criticism of feminism.NeoApsara 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent/non-contextualized statistics

According to "Americans for Divorce Reform", as the divorce rate soared, so did the number of children involved in divorce. The number of children involved in divorces and annulments stood at 6.3 per 1,000 children under 18 years of age in 1950, and 7.2 in 1960. By 1970 it had increased to 12.5; by 1975, 16.7; by 1980, the rate stood at 17.3, a 175 percent increase from 1950. Since in 1972, one million American children every year have seen their parents divorce. (Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993.)

Okay, these are really just excessive statistics that aren’t presented in the context of what FRAs are trying to say. Rather they’d belong in a divorce article. Perhaps somebody can work them in a way that speaks to what FRAs feel to be appropriate for the article.NeoApsara

Mother's rights

Would anyone be interested in doing an article to accompany this which describes mother's rights? It seems to be lacking to only cover it under the name of father, even though it does speak extensively on the rights of mothers by default. Possibly much of the information here could be used to create that. I just finished making a slew of articles and I'd rather someone more familiar with the issue create it.

I notice Mothers' rights redirects here. I don't feel this is very neutral. If the article is going to be used to discuss both, parents' rights (need to create and redirect parent's rights to it) are a better place for the topics and terms to congregate. Parent's movement is mentioned in this article as something that includes this as well as men's rights. When creating the parent's rights article I suppose this could be mentioned along with mother's rights, and their respective relations to men's rights and women's rights.Tyciol 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section on this page doesn't seem to be fair. It's seems to be a POV of Trish Wilson. And it lacks references. One bad egg shouldn't be used to discredit a whole movement. And it is unproportional in this way. I think a criticism section should be about the criticism of ideas. It's like making the Jews collectively responsible of Jesus's crucifiction. Or like putting some extremist quotation in a feminist article, to discredit the movement e.g.:

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

You are a bit incoherent regarding your issue with the section, but in terms of what is relevent how do you believe it violates Wiki policy? I saw one reference missing and found it at the bottom of the page; the rest is cited (look at the little numbers and/or arrows at the end of a sentence - that is a reference). If you do not believe Trish Wilson's criticisms of the Father's Rights Movement is sufficient, you are allowed to cite and quote further criticisms to add to the section.NeoApsara 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In what terms am I incoherent?