Talk:Fathers' rights

NPOV again

This is just advertising space for the F4J and others. There is no mention of the many criticisms made about the anti-woman tone the organisation has often adopted, nor of the complications pointed out by neutral observers (do we slice the child in two?).

The author is one of the main figures in the F4J and can't be expected (or asked) to be neutral and actually print the critiques. He reverts them every time someone tries and frankly I'd rather we just gave up and left the NPOV warning so people at least know what they're getting in to.

It is better to correct biassed material, I think, than just to label is as such. If the anonymous writer above (62.252.128.25) knows any of the specific criticisms made about the anti-woman tone of the organisation, then they ought to be put into the article. Unfortunately the comment above is non-specific, so what can be done? It is an accusation of bias by omission - without making good the omission. Surely the same could be said about any article that missed anything out about anything. The fact that an author chooses to include some facts and exclude others may be deemed biassed , but not by the criteria that wikipedia uses, surely? Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "slicing children in two" point, it has been argued that shared parenting (such as occurs in most intact families and many broken ones too) is like splitting the CD collection in two when the parents split. However a closer analogy to CDs can be made when the chuild lives with one parent and is begrudgingly lent out to the other parent on specific occasions. Anybody can treat a child as a possession, but shared parenting is about letting the child share its time with both parents in such a way that neither parent's possessiveness doesn't gets in the way. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning that Matt O'Connor, founder of F4J, has this said about him in the Daily Telegraph [1] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml;sessionid=QO4UTSBRBK25RQFIQMFSNAGAVCBQ0JVC?xml=%2Fportal/exclusions/supplements/greatbritons04/ixbritons.xml&_requestid=9170) regarding his nomination for the Great Briton Awards 2004:

MATT O'CONNOR SHORTLISTED FOR THE GREAT BRITON OF THE YEAR AWARD 2004

Short listed amongst 20 others the Judges said 'As founder of the pressure group Fathers4Justice, the judges felt he had displayed great humour, eccentricity and innovation in raising awareness of a very serious social issue. Through his efforts he has succeeded, with minimal funds and minimal infrastructure, to take the issue of access for fathers to a point where, in a short space of time, the huge majority of people in Britain is now fully aware of the issue and the need to find a solution. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the anonymous writer abouve should inform the Daily Telegraph about "many criticisms made about the anti-woman tone the organisation has often adopted" because I'm sure they'll be interested, and perhaps could get Matt O'Connor withdrawn fron the contest before it's too late!

I'll take the NPOV epithet out pending the uncovering of these important factual criticisms which I await with bated breath. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Matt- You seem to have a problem with the characterization of the article as POV. However, as long is there is any dispute about whether or not the article is POV, it should retain the NPOV dispute disclaimer. Please do not remove it in the future until the dispute has been resolved. In the meantime, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum to encourage or support social change, redress injuries, or present groups and movements in favorable or disfavorable lights, or indeed to make any sort of value judgement whatsoever. It is an encyclopedia, and it is supposed to have a completely neutral point of view. You should reduce the amount of time spent on rhetoric such as "Perhaps the anonymous writer above should inform the Daily Telegraph!!!" and instead focus on addressing and documenting any criticisms of the movement as fairly as possible (prefrably citing specifics criticisms from specific critics). -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ther rhetoric was on a Talk Page, not in the article itself. I have cited sources to indicate that the founder of F4J has been nominated for a Great Briton Award - not that he is a controversial anti-feminist. If there is a dispute, let's know what is disputed, please. Meanwhile, in the absence of any material disputation, my "wanton vandalism" continues. The more people who get involved, the better. The introducer of the unsubstantiated claim of NPOV is the vandal. He/she or it should go away and check his/her or its facts. All the stuff that I've added to the article has been backed up by references, or personal anecdotes from people I trust who have experienced the nightmare that gave rise to the father's rights movement in the first place. I suppose you'd put an NPOV sticker on a piece about concentration camps if one of the contributors happened to have been in one. So much for neutrallity! Matt Stan 00:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law. You hereby lose your argument. Sorry. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still POV

This article remains POV. Removing the NPOV disclaimer without addressing any of the concerns (all of which stem from the fact that the primary author of this article is writing from the point of view that the positions of the fathers' rights movement are correct) constitutes vandalism. —Kelly Martin 23:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) (edited to remove stupidism on my part Kelly Martin 00:23, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC))

I think that you mean the article remains POV? NPOV is our goal. The NPOV disclaimer actually is a not-NPOV disclaimer. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am stuck here. You are telling me that until another author comes along who is not as ignorant as you on this subject, you are going to dispute it's neutrality, without offering any evidence. I'll add your criticism into the article itself, since you don't seem to know anything about it, and take out the unjustified NPOV epithet. Matt Stan 00:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, Matthew, what I'm telling you is that as long as the article is written from your point of view, it will remain POV and will continue to get the NPOV warning. The NPOV warning is totally justified. Any place where the article states a conclusory opinion as fact (there are several) constitutes a biased POV and needs to be edited. For example, the way "imbalances" is used in the first paragraph is POV language and should be changed, as is the conclusory claim at the end of the first paragraph (that cutting fathers off from their children is detrimental). Given time, I'm sure I could identify dozens, if not hundreds, of NPOV violations in this article. Please stop treating the POV disclaimer as a slander; it is not, nor is it a criticism of your opinion or your beliefs, but simply a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia desires to refrain from taking a side in this sort of debate. —Kelly Martin 00:23, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A neutrality dispute is not an epithet. It is a statement of fact. Kelly Martin thinks the article is not netural. Matt Stan apparently thinks it is. There is therefore a dispute. Leave the warning in place. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

epithet : A word or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned. (SOED) I prefer to use epithet in this context as it has a better granularity of meaning that the somewhat nerdy tag. Matt Stan 01:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the article in the two instances cited. Any more? Matt Stan 00:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your changes consisted of adding weasel terms, which is not sufficient to cure a POV problem. I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of the article in an attempt to achieve a result which is, at least, closer to NPOV. Feel free to rewrite the remainder of the article in a similar manner. —Kelly Martin 01:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I changed the article by saying, e.g. "fathers' rights activists claim that ...", thereby providing attribution, which a weasel term does not. Matt Stan 02:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order to be NPOV in a situation like this you really need to present both sides of the debate. It's not enough to attribute your own opinions to yourself; you need to at least make some effort to express the point of view of those who disagree with you. To that end, I strongly urge you to stop deleting content that expresses opposing points of view, if you are, in fact, dedicated to creating an NPOV article. —Kelly Martin 04:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

If there was a debate, then I would. The interesting thing about the father's rights movement is that no one has come forward with any counter-arguments. One is only left with the conspiracy theory that many mothers in family break-up situations have been got at by highly aggressive lawyers and the darker side of the women's movement with the aim of what one newspaper called a "parentectomy" to have the fathers removed from the children's lives. The so-called fathers' rights movement is just a natural response to that tendency. This conspiracy theory is supported by a recent Court of Appeal judgment in which the judge mentioned that a mother's unfounded fears about the father were whipped up by material from Women's Aid. And you've only got to look at what happened to Erin Pizzey to see that there is a darker side to the women's movement - they killed her dog and forced her to emigrate. A recent CAFCASS audit report drew attention to what it called "old fashioned" ideas being predominant in some quarters there. The fact is however that we are moving on. No longer is it (if it ever was) respectable to make excuses as to why a dedicated father should not be as fully involved in his children's lives as he is able, regardless of irrelevant excuses from the mother. There's still some way to go, but attitudes are changing. Matt Stan 07:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a PRE-EMPTIVE WARNING AND REMINDER that if any of you violate the three-revert rule you will be blocked. Please, use caution. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Part removed

I've removed:

Critics of the fathers' rights movement claim that the men represented by these groups are primarily seeking to avoid financial responsibility or even punish their ex-wives for divorcing them, as often as they are seeking to preserve what interests they have in their children, if indeed they have any.

no sources cited. Matt Stan 01:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrender

I surrender. I am not going to waste my time in an editwar with an editor who believes that the term "ignorant" can be used in an NPOV manner. Hopefully someone with more energy than I will come along and fix the problems with this page; doing so myself would interfere with my personal quest for domestic tranquillity.

At this point, I think Wikipedia would better served by deleting this page in its entirety.

—Kelly Martin 18:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia would not be better served by deleting this article. And if Kelly thinks so there is a standard procedure to be followed. If Kelly surrenders - if the argument as to why this is not NPOV is not going to be advanced - then the POV tag cannot remain. I have removed it. Paul Beardsell 02:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Read the following, from "the scope of the problem"

There is a suspicion that the current situation is the result of what people have observed as widespread, systematic and persistent abuses of human rights, resulting in financial gain for lawyers. There is also considerable fear of what are viewed as heterophobic and feminist state-funded bodies [11] (http://www.familieslink.co.uk) are obstructing what many would consider to be humane arguments made by aggrieved fathers.

This is incredibly POV, couched in "neutral" sounding phraseology. This article is so throughly biased in favor of this particular British anti-feminist movement that if it is not completely rewritten, it will merit deletion. If there weren't some wheat buried in all the chaff, I'd simply have marked it for deletion myself.Zantastik 06:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Elusive_virtue Matt Stan 23:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response to what I construe merely to be an ad hominem attack here by Zantastic, I could just replace anything you object to with quotes from Bob Geldof and commentary, e.g.

"Family Law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child, and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale."

If Sir Bob is to be believed then, when one considers that there are a large number of people in the legal trade who get paid for practising family law then a question that naturally occurs to people who want to change it is that perhaps lawyers' vested interests are being taken into account in the maintenance of the current status quo. An alternative view might be that there are other political forces at work acting to toward the demise of the family [and then I could quote some Erin Pizzey].

Would that help to overcome the impression that this article might be POV?

I am immensely edified that that someone has taken the trouble to come along to question the material in this article, but I feel that, rather than simply complain ignorantly, you must present some factual information to counter what you consider to be the POV, or as you say "incredibly POV", implying some emotional reaction reaction on your part, perhaps, rather than simply claim POVness as though it were self-evident - this is what is ad hominem. Otherwise I can simply replace much of what I have written with authentic quotes and references. I think, when you do your research, you'll find that I have not misrepresented one iota what fathers' rights is about, regardless of whether you agree with the movement's underlying family values. I'll just sign off with another Geldof and something from Erin Pizzey:

"And yet while individuals struggle with these difficult new conundrums the law governing the, if you will, ‘intimate’ parts of society, the ‘personal’ laws, remain (though some are fairly recently drafted) resolutely unaltered in their presumptions, save for the pathetic pretence that they are gender neutral. This is a grotesque lie that all Family Law professionals have tacitly agreed to be party to, as willingly acknowledged by nearly all the lawyers I have talked to on this issue. And regardless of whether the professionals acknowledge it to be or not, the vast majority of my correspondents, friends and others regard it to be so." (Bob Geldof in 2003)

"Over the last thirty years I saw great corruption in the English courts. I saw fathers of children denied their rights and persecuted. I have seen our own government concur to a television advertisement on Scottish television where children were advised to contact a telephone number should their fathers shout and their mothers. ... I saw the rise of the single parent mother glorified in the women's sections of some newspapers. Four women journalists wrote about their search for the right man to give them their children and the four women promised their readers that the children would never even know their fathers." (Erin Pizzey in 2000)

Matt Stan 07:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

I glanced over the article, having seen it listed for Deletion, and it looks fine. The article being on "fathers' rights" is going to be a bit POV to a few people inheritently just by existing. Spinboy 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If neutrality of this article is disputed, an explanation of a gendered issue ought to be shown grace by the Wikipedia community. How difficult is it to describe up or down, horizontal, if we could only reference left or right, vertical, if to say nothing? What would a wiki-reader appreciate? Markruffolo

Non-NPOV tag to be removed

Still no argument as to what exactly is POV about the article is being advanced. So I intend to remove the non-NPOV tag. Paul Beardsell 13:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to hop into this dispute but I wanted to point out that there are some obvious POV problems. Take the "adversarial court system" section. Here are some obvious POV problems:

"then the father has somehow to demonstrate..." - argumentative.
"Any aggression that the father may have manifested in the past is claimed to be treated as justification for limiting his involvement in his children's upbringing." - a broad characterization
"Fathers' Rights campaigners question the assumption that it can ever be legitimate for the state to collude in disrupting a loving and natural relationship between a father and his children." - The problem here is that we are declaring that this collusion actually happens.
"Bob Geldof has written eloquently and emotively on this subject" - too much praise

Other sections:

"Fathers rights' is unequivocally about redressing an inequality" - again, declaring that this inequality exists

The article is also very UK-centric. That doesn't merit the NPOV tag but it's something to fix. Rhobite 03:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

An argument that this article is hopelessly POV

While it might be a bit more efficient to list the portions of this article which are not POV, I will, per a request by Matt Stan, briefly discuss some of the most egregiously POV sections of this article. Let's take it from the top, shall we?

The "traditional view"

According to this article,

The view has traditionally been that there are a small minority of cases where a judge, who is assumed to be high-minded, must make decisions that will affect children's lives drastically. Rather than being criticised, these judges should be commended for performing this undesirable role. For users of the system, i.e. parents involved in litigation, there is frequently the perception that the system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions.

So, apparently there is "frequently the perception" that the system is a "monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions." No opposing views are presented, even though clearly a vast number of people would disagree here. The over-the-top language is almost laughable as well.

Bob Geldof again:

And no need for the laborious and unjust proposals in the Lord Chancellor’s report which is a reductionist brief in a bid to make CAFCASS into the overarching State implementor of Family Law. Perhaps we should call it KAFKASS. This provides for an interminable round of increasing sanctions to a ecalcitrant parent who will not allow access to the child though so ordered. Under the proposed regime it would literally take months and possibly years before the other parent could see his child. At which point he would meet a virtual stranger, possibly poisoned with prejudice (also a problem in the status quo issue) against him.[Geldof gives references here]Why is this permitted?

Quoted from The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name: A Sometimes Coherent Rant by BOB GELDOF. If he can get his views published by Cambridge Press, and is an advisor to the British Government on this issue, and no one has published an attack on this piece as far as I am aware, I argue it is probably acceptable in Wikipedia to echo parts of this copyrighted work. If the perception wasn't frequent, as I allege, then surely by quoting Geldof the perception is likely made more frequent. And in fact, as far as I am aware, there are not a "vast number of people" who disagree. Matt Stan 23:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Counter Claims"

Here, I will reproduce a good deal of text, since it needs to be read in its entirety in order to be fairly judged.

There are as yet unsubstantiated claims that publicity for fathers' rights is just advertising space for F4J and others. Apart from veiled references in the British Court of Appeal to Women's Aid material being used disingenuously to whip up a mother's fears, there have been no serious criticisms made about any anti-woman tone that people emight xpect would be adopted by fathers' rights organisations in the highly charged atmosphere that surrounds the issues. See shared residency for more information about possible complications arising from fathers' rights campaigners' claims.

In the relatively small section devoted to those who do not share this movement's goals (and it's essentially a UK thing -- it's not a "major movement" in the western world), the claims of those who oppose this movement are blithely denounced as "unsubstantiated." We also learn that there have been "no serious criticisms" that people might "xpect."

There's a double bind here: if the movement is primarily restricted to the UK then it's surely OK for the article to focus on UK issues. If not, then the article should perhaps nevertheless take on board other countries' perspectives. The US, arguably more democratic than the UK in this respect, has tended to be more innovative in coming up with solutions that deal better with core fathers' rights issues and therefore perhaps the injustices that the article focuses are less meaningful there because they have been dealt with. One would expect an article on, say, apartheid to talk about South Africa and not make POV claims if that article didn't deal with why there wasn't apartheid in Iceland! Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the 'unsubstantiated' matter, surely until something is substantiated it is unsubstantiated. Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fathers rights' is unequivocally about redressing an inequality and aupporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents separate or divorce. As such there have been few, if any, voices rasied against this cause.

Now, still in the section dealing with critics of this article, we learn that this movement is "unequivocally about redressing an inequality and aupporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents." If this is criticism, what is praise?

I'm not sure I understand the rhetoric here. The assumption is that it is normal (i.e. over 50% everywhere) for children to be brought up in families with 2 parents. Therefore most children expect to be brought up by both their parents. The fathers' rights argument is that it is closer to that norm still to be brought up by both their parents after a split than only to be brought up by one parent in that situation. I think I've made it less clear here by trying to explain such an elementary concept than what's in the article. The "inequality" (though I've changed the article to say "perceived inequality") is just that, though perhaps "imbalance" would do equally well to express this idea. Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers [11] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4250397.stm).

Other "critics" argue that this movement has nothing against feminism.

Following this section there is a good deal of material about "supporters," to say nothing of the self-described "rants" of celebrities that are reproduced elsewhere in the article.

Surely Bob Geldof is as good an authority as any on this subject, given his record on eliminating poverty and generally getting things done. Should he be disbelieved on this issue? If so, why? Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An assessment of the article

I think it is quite a shame to see an article about an important men's movement in the UK be turned into a badly-written, long-winded tract in support of this movement's point of view. I would like to see the views of this movement's members as well of its detractors well represented in a neutral article. However, this article, in its many iterations, has probably never been neutral, and if drastic, systemic changes are not made to it to correct the fact that it is POV through and through, I will be forced to submit it for VfD. There, perhaps, more objective minds will see this article for what it is.

P.S. I know little about this movement. I don't have a lot invested in these matters. However, I do want a well-done wikipedia with no gross POV, whether it's POV against or in favor of my views. Zantastik 03:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that this article has serious POV issues, please don't submit it to VfD again. It went through VfD a week ago and the votes were nearly unanimous in favor of keeping it, because POV is not one of the criteria for deletion here. Any VfD listing you start will be reverted. Rhobite 03:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

On 8-jan-2005, Zantastic wrote:

- While much of this article is well-written and informative, the fact that it contains no criticism of certain anti-feminist subsets of the Fathers' Rights movement renders it biased. Many prominant figures and groups have attacked some Fathers' Rights activists, arguing that they simply want to roll back feminism and return to a more partriarchal way of doing things. Whether one agrees or disagrees with such critiques is not germane here -- but until these matters are treated, this article is biased by omission.Zantastik 08:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article has been hacked about by various authors, true (though not that much since 8 Jan), and maybe some of it is badly written, but I am sensitised to personal attack here, and still would like to find out what these are anti-feminist subsets of the fathers' rights movement are. It's a bit like saying that the church is full of hypocrites - but where else would you expect hypocrites to go? In my experience, the reputable parts of the fathers' rights movement (amongst which I include FNF, the longest established organisation in this field) has always been at pains to marginalise any elements that have a hint of misogynism, and gender politics hasn't really been an issue. I maintain there is nothing anti-feminist about a dad wanting to be with his children. That is what fathers' rights is about, and I haven't heard any feminists speak out against that principle, though I've seen plenty of women acting on it. There has been some polarisation on the issue of domestic violence#Gender, about which some readers might like to look at that article, where I have also contributed. Matt Stan 07:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zantastic, if you have instances of these criticisms directed towards the fathers' rights movement, please post them. Articles, groups which oppose the movement, etc. When pointing out that an article is missing information, it's best to give people examples of this missing information. Rhobite 21:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

VfD

This page was listed for deletion on February 7, 2005, the consensus was to keep. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fathers' rights. Rje 23:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

The Consensus was also that this biased article needed a substantial re-write, something I don't see anyone doing. See my comments on the article's bias above, written in response to a specific request that I do so. Zantastik 06:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a volunteer effort - you can only improve an article up to a point by tagging and talking. At some point you have to start editing. Rhobite 06:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Be_bold.png
Be bold!

Take iniative. Be bold. --Spinboy 07:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zantastic wrote: "I know little about this movement". Some people know a bit more. Let's therefore distinguish between what those who know a bit and those who know little can usefully contribute. If one is describing a point of view and one is informed about what that point of view is then that is not against wikipedia's NPOV policy per se. If there are value judgments unconsciously made, or inferences which are contentious, then let's hear what they are. I'm very keen to try to clear up any misunderstandings that might arise. If one is aiming to inform about a social issue that raises strong emotions then it should perhaps also be conceded that it is that information which is evocative, and that may not have too much to do with the way that it is expressed. WIkipedia is primarily about informing people and letting them make their own minds up. Is it preferable to encourage contributions from people who know little and end up with a content-free anodyne articlw? The failure of the VfD surely mitigates otherwise. This is why I have been so insistent that critics indicate what their criticisms are rather than just make blanket judgments unsupported by any substantive argument. Matt Stan 07:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My criticisms may have gotten lost in all the other discussion, but they're up there and are unanswered. You may want to start there, and look for other examples of the type of value judgments I'm pointing out. Rhobite 07:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken on board the points that User:Rhobite made and adjusted the article accordingly where appropriate. Otherwise I've given justifications on this discussion page. Hence removal of POV tag for the time being. Please put it back and make any further points as appropriate. Matt Stan 23:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup/npov

This page is biased in favor of the Father's Rights movement, and at times reads like a promotional essay for that movement. Even the "critics" section contains no criticism of it! One need only read the VfD page to see that this article needs a re-write and cleanup. Any attempt to remove these tags prematurely will not work.

NPOV or vandalism?

Please realise that the NPOV tag has been put in by someone who doesn't know enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing controversial has actually been said. The article eloquently explains the fathers' rights perspective for what it is, and this has led to nonspecific allegations that it is biased by a few people who are, by drawing attention to it, helping to get it more widely read. Many thanks! Keep it controversial - people enjoy that - though it would, as I've hinted before, be helpful, rather than saying it's "hopelessly POV" to say why. This request has been made so many times now, with no substantive result, that perhaps the people who keep making this unjustified claim should be blocked for vandalism. Matt Stan 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where a specific disputed point is raised, I'm always happy to make amendments, bring in more reference material, etc. Matt Stan 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

npov/cleanup tags aren't going away

Fine, I'll give my reasons. I agree with what "Zantastik" said. but here:

1. Sorry, if calling a subset of the british judicial system a "monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" isn't expressing a definite point of view, what is?

Note that the NPOV does not forbid the expression of a definite point of view. It merely requires the author to attribute that definite point of view to its source. So although a statement such as "A subset of the british judicial system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" does not conform to the NPOV, a statement such as "Some members of the Fathers' Rights movement believe that a subset of the british judicial system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" does conform to the NPOV. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

2. "There have been no serious criticisms made about any anti-woman tone that people emight xpect would be adopted by fathers' rights organisations in the highly charged atmosphere that surrounds the issues." -- There have been no'serious criticisms? So everyone's in total agreement here, huh.

You presumably haven't heard of any serious criticisms, or you would have cited them, QED :-) Matt Stan

It is so pov to state that this movement is "unequivocally about redressing an inequality and supporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents." Instead, we should say that the supporters of the movement claim this. Putting such a quote in the "critics" section is crazy.

Surely something is either expressed from a neutral point of view or it isn't. How can there be degrees of 'point of view', as in so pov? The point here though is that if the view of the supporters of some movement is such and such, surely we don't need to say that supporters claim that that is their view; it just is their view. If we are going to extend pov dogma to this extent then we couldn't say that science operates through empiricism, only that scientissts claim it does, and so on. Isn't that taking things to rather an absurd extreme? Matt Stan 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The criticism - only as far as I am aware provided here as "original research" by wikipedia contributors - is that the fathers' rights movement is an anti-feminist patriarchal throwback. In order to satisfy my detractors, I put the Critics section in - somewhat tongue-in-cheek I confess - but hoping that it might open up an opportunity for genuine critics af a movement that is unequivocally about redressing an inequality and supporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents split to be cited. My initiative seems to have failed, since no such criticisms have yet been voiced. That's not to say they might not become so, at some point. Matt Stan 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matt, when you say that no one has listed specific disputed points, you ignore that "Zantastik" and you have disputed several.

I'll have another check through Zantastic's postings, but I think I've already covered any specific points made in that regard. Of course, I'm having now to search through all the old vitriol to find anything specific that anyone might have disputed to support the alleged POV nature of the article. Any every time I think I've covered it, someone puts the POV tag back again, most recently with the epither that /* npov/cleanup tags aren't going away */. Anyone would thing someone was trying to do a wind-up here. Hence my claim that this article is being vandalised. Matt Stan 00:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But there you go, you admit that this "article eloquently explains the fathers' rights perspective for what it is." The article should describe the movement, not parrot its perspective! Matt, are you trying to get out of doing what the VfD panel said to do? -- (said somebody who didn't bother to sign their comments)

Couldn't you say that any of the wikipedia articles picked for the main page 'eloquently explain their subject-matter for what it is'? How could it be otherswise? The wikipedia convention of only relying on other sources effectively means that it is a parrot in every respect. The editors distinguish the encyclopedia by their eloquence alone, by making clear that which might otherwise be unclear. Matt Stan 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The VfD panel voted pretty impressively to keep the article, and I have stated that any aspect of the article which is queried I am happy to change or back-up with extra material. As is I hope evidently clear, I have sources of information that bely claims that the article is slanted and I can only answer specific claims of POV in parts of the article.

I have left in the bit about there being a perception of the monstrous bureaucracy of kafkaesque proportions as I think it actually is a toning down of the manner in which the same sentiment was exrpressed by a UK judge in a published court judgement, with reference cited. Whilst conceding that this perception might be amplified by the article itself, I don't think that such a proclamation is anything other than being Q.E.D, rather than POV. I hope the detractors of this article will just begin to see just a little bit that my purpose in this article is to inform about what no doubt some find to be shocking facts, but which nevertheless are facts rather than any POV diatribe. This branch of the British juduicial system is indeed, I would hazard, rotten to the core, and it needs whistle-blowers (i.e. informers who provide information, including, in this instance a senior judge) to show those who find such facts unpalatable that they are in fact true, and perhaps this will act as a frightening reality checkpoint to those complacent enough to believe that they might not one day find themselves in the same position as fathers' rights campaigners have found themselves. Matt Stan 23:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of first section

I have rewritten the first section, which I have broken up into sections and renamed Main Beliefs and Goals (of the movement). The text is clearer, less colloquial, more analytical and there is (finally!) no bias shown to either the fathers' rights activists or their critics. This style is more suited to an encyclopaedia -- before the rewrite, the style suited an informal speech given at a "what is the Fathers' Rights movement" meeting. The rest of the article needs to be rewritten in a similar vein; this is a pretty daunting task, so perhaps those who want to follow, not dodge, the instructions of the VfD committee should lend a hand, doing a section at a time. Zantastik 05:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the title the problem?

I've kept my distance from this article, mostly due to the fact that I myself am a father currently living the nightmare of lengthy Family Court proceedings to remain in contact with my son. This article has had a history of neutrality problems, which is not unexpected. Mothers and fathers are both parents. I've witnessed both sexes experiencing alienation from their child at the hands of bitter ex's. It's not a problem that is gender specific. Perhaps the title of the article lends itself to being biased towards a fathers movement? Maybe the title should be moved to Parents' rights or similar? (although for the past 5 years, I've been told I have no right whatsoever of seeing my child - every right belongs to my son). What do others think? Is the title a problem? Longhair 11:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about parents' rights rather than fathers' rights but I don't think that it's a major problem. It might be better at "Fathers' rights movements" or "Parents' rights movements" but I would say that it's much more important to make the contents neutral. Since the article describes the views of the Fathers' rights movement at the moment, the title is at least accurate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Limited Perspetive

If this were one's sole introduction to the topic of Fathers' Rights, one would believe the movement did not exist until the creation of Fathers 4 Justice. One would also believe that almost all activity were taking place in the UK, at the hands of F4J.

Of course, this is not the case. The Parents/Childrens/Fathers rights movement has been around for over thirty years. There are many hundreds of organizations, some well funded, some small and local.

The entire article need to be rewritten. Agwiii 22:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Reinstated

As summarized by numerous other commentators above, this entire article is hopelessly POV. I have reinserted the NPOV tag, and made various other edits in an attempt to move the article closer to neutrality. It will probably have to be rewritten completely. Firebug 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've gone and reverted the edits since this page had reached a consensus. NPOV tags aren't meant to stay on a page forever. --Spinboy 16:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No such consensus was reached. Rather, the article had been taken over by a small handful of F4J campaigners who inserted their own POVs throughout. This is not the first time the neutrality of this article has been called into question. Sections claiming (with no evidence or citations whatsoever) that no-fault divorce is a Leninist invention, and sections uncritically parroting propaganda ("There is also considerable fear of what are viewed as heterophobic and feminist state-funded bodies [2] (http://www.familieslink.co.uk) are obstructing what many would consider to be humane arguments made by aggrieved fathers.") If you doubt me, I ask you to call in five long-time, well-regarded Wikipedians who have never seen this article before, and ask them whether it violates NPOV in the form that you reverted back to. I'm considering a complete rewrite of the article since it was written from a POV standpoint in the first place and cleanups are merely shoving the mess into the closet. Firebug 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is documented and cited evidence that Women's Aid helpers have acted as agents provocateurs in whipping up anti-father sentiment, which gives rise to the fears mentioned in the article. Since this is factual (and whether or not this is Women's Aid policy, the fears are real), don't see how NPOV applies in this instance. NPOV tag can be removed now, since Firebug seems to have run out of steam, I think. Matt Stan 08:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

F4J Advertisement

Most of this article remains as a F4J advertisement. The entire Fathers' Rights discussion has been hijacked to England! Agwiii 17:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you two don't like how it's written, why don't you rewrite it then instead of complaining? --Spinboy 19:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's so F4J-centric it can't be re-written. I think it should be deleted and let someone start over. Agwiii 21:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was already a vfd, and the vote was to keep. So if you don't want to re-write it, go away and don't read it. --Spinboy 21:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fathers rights has obtained considerable publicity and therefore public interest since F4J's coming to prominence. I don't think giving coverave of what they have done is an advertisement inasmuch as they get enough coverage on BBC and other media outlets without bothering about wikipedia. Incidentally, apart from having been involved in a radio broadcast with Matt O'Connor and Bob geldof a couple of years ago I have nothing to do with F4J and am not a member of it. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whilst there is evidently much activity regarding fathers rights particularly in the US, worldwide publicity for the plight of affected fathers has centred in the UK for the last two years, with a focus provided by F4J. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to provide coverage that includes the UK perspective. There's nothing to prevent others from giving equal coverage from other national perspetives. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a typically European slur against the United States. Worldwide publicity indeed - throwing condoms at your Prime Minister. Not one piece of legislation has been passed based upon the F4J stunts. However, many of the organizations in the United States have passed reform legislation. It's the difference between style and substance. If you want substance, then you take the example of the activists in the United States. if you want noise and self-serving publicity stunts, go for the F4J. Agwiii 08:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No slur implied nor intended, I am sure. If you are accusing the British of parochialism on a world stage then you may be right. But throwing a purple powder-filled condom at the Prime Minister did at least get heard about by Americans. What have Europeans heard about what is going on in the US and elsewhere? Surely wikipedia is the place to put such information. Then I might learn something. Which laws have been changed, in which states, and what have the effects been? Matt Stan 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii (talk • contribs) is a suspected wikipedia:sockpuppet of RexJudicata (talk • contribs). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata. --SqueakBox 04:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Deletionist

The following appeared at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Russian_Communist_attempt_to_abolish_the_family:

By the way - I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, but can we get neutral parties to overview the content of the main Fathers' rights article? While the movement is newsworthy enough to deserve an article, the existing article is hopelessly POV, consisting largely of propaganda couched in weasel words. (Examples: "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." And "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers". Both of which I have removed, along with unsourced comments trying to tar no-fault divorce by comparison with Leninist atrocities.) I'd like to see this entire article rewritten from a NPOV. Firebug 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want corroboration of "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." then I suggest you just read the court cases referenced from Family law system in the UK#Case_Law. They do make fascinating reading, and are generally very well written by senior family court judges - who ought to know what they are talking about. A paragraph from one of those cases might suffice, from the Wall judgment (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2253/father&mother.htm):

"34 Mrs. P [social worker] was able to observe the interaction between B [son] and Mr. A [father]. She thought they had a warm, loving and entirely appropriate father son relationship. Mrs. P returned home at about 9.00pm to find a telephone message from Mrs. A [mother], to whom she then spoke. Mrs. A told her that the more she had read the Women?s Aid literature, she more concerned she was about C [daughter] having contact with her father. She related a number of incidents, with which I will deal later. She also told Mrs P that C had asked her to tell Mrs. P that she wished to see Mrs P as she had something to tell her."

It has been my common experience that mothers who have taken advice from Women's Aid activists (whether those mothers have been abused or not) are commonly told to ask the court to impose supervised contact of two hours per month at a contact centre. This seems to be standard, but it's hard to equate that arrangement with what the Human Rights Act calls family life. So what should one conclude?

Whilst it may or may not be true that there elements in society that want fathers eliminated from children's lives, it certainly is the perception of those who've encountered or been involved in cases such as that covered by Wall (and the other cases that have been published by the courts) that there are such elements. Therefore it is POV censorship to delete that fact from this article.

Similarly, the other deletion: "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers" It interests me that someone who evidently doesn't really know very much about the subject is so offended by the truth that they just delete it. Surely it's OK, if someone gets up and says they want the law changed - isn't that what fathers' rights people in general say? - to point out that bad family law can affect both fathers and mothers badly. I have seen distressed mothers restricted from being with their children. (They sometimes come to FNF for support as a last resort, and get it.) They are equally victims of the system; there just aren't nearly as many women in this position as men. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's okay if someone gets up and says they want the law changed. There are web pages, letters, magazine articles, pamphlets, books, TV, and radio to do that in. But an encyclopedia is not the right place to make a call for action like that. Our articles are supposed to describe people's beliefs not to state which of them should be put into effect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, in which case is not the paragraph cited above that starts "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of ..." simply an instance of "describing people's beliefs", as you put it. So why delete it? (The fact that you know my stance should surely not detract from what I actually write. You need to look at the writing itself, and forget who might have written it. That is what wikipedia is about.) Matt Stan 20:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an anon because they had deleted what another contributer had written, without explanation and with no obvious reason, and because they added several pages on Parental Alienation Syndrome. That much on a separate, even if related, topic deserves its own article. DJ Clayworth 21:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parts cut from the article

Many people fail to understand the fathers' rights movement as such, rather seeing it as the reaction of individuals who have had unfortunate judgments made against them in family courts, or who have found that, even when a court has established that it is in a child's interest to maintain a relationship with the father, this does not occur because the mother obstructs it. A UK family court judge declared in 2004 that material provided by Women's Aid had unnecessarily caused a mother to express fear about a father's involvement with the children. This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child. The idea that a father provides advantages to his offspring, which is supported by research, is discounted by what a judge has described as a "group of obdurate women" on the grounds that mothers should be able to choose to bring up their children alone if they want to. Such a view is not acceptable in a UK family court and therefore women who hold this belief have to adopt other means to achieve their aims.

Those who have been to court cases where Women's Aid helpers have also been in evidence would be unlikely to dispute the paragraph above. Matt Stan 21:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in the level of sophistication of those who tend to delete anything that indicates that some people believe there might be a hidden agenda by those who oppose fathers' rights. From my observations here of edits to this article, an interesting body of evidence is growing (bearing in mind that wikipedia keeps all old edits). The only way to remove this evidence is to delete the whole article, an expedient that was tried and rejected wholeheartedly by wikipedians earlier this year. Please keep coming, you deletionists, you are providing prima facie evidence! Matt Stan 09:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took this link out: * Satan Revealed (http://www.boss-media.net/) by Reverend Michael. The link takes you to a page that advertises a book: "The book was written to show the black man, and the world the true source of their problem is due to 33% of the black women of America (Babylon). That black woman is Jezebel, Lilith the Devil." This does not seem to support the gist of the article, which is about a movement trying to establish that men should remain with their children, not that the cause of all their troubles is demonic black women. Matt Stan 12:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Fathers%27_rights"