Talk:Fathers' rights movement
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fathers' rights movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Fathers' rights movement received a peer review by Wikipedia 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. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Fathers' rights movement be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
| On 20 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fathers' rights. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Manosphere?
edit- Thread retitled from ""Manosphere" - verification failed".
The first journal is paywalled, but the second book definitely never says "fathers' rights movement" is in the manosphere. It says that about MRM (men's rights movements) and MGTOW (men going their own way) but it appears to me that the fathers' rights movement is wider than any of these and not confined to the manosphere. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: I have added quote fields to both citations for the benefit of yourself and others who can't access the sources. Both sources support the claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, OK, it all checks out (of course it would) and I thank you kindly for the willingness to do the ref work to source categories, which is a rare quality around here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"Many members did not have experience in law or politics."
edit"Many members did not have experience in law or politics." - Really? How many members did not have experience in law or politics? Did they not have experience in law, or politics? Did a few have a lot of experience in law, and a little experience in politics? I hope my difficulty with this sentence is apparent. 77.97.36.146 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this was worded unusually; I have re-phrased and removed this from the article. Hope this helps. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Baskerville citations
editThe many citations to sources authored by Stephen Baskerville in the § Main issues section create undue weight. Baskerville himself is described as a fathers' rights advocate
, so he is not an independent source on what FRAs believe. His book Taken Into Custody is a polemic, not a work of scholarship. I couldn't find a website for the publisher Cumberland House, but it seems to cater to a conservative popular audience in topics like history, crime, and sports. We should instead look for reliable, independent scholarship to describe any controversial issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Parke & Brott (1999) is another poor source for largely similar reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 20 July 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 12:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Fathers' rights movement → Fathers' rights – Difference in lemma between Mothers' rights and Fathers' rights movement is discriminatory. HudecEmil (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article Mothers' rights is about the rights of mothers. Fathers' rights movement is about an activist movement. Equating the two is comparing apples and oranges. It's not discriminatory to accurately describe topics according to reliable sources, and in any case Wikipedia does not censor contents that some people happen to find objectionable for political reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Sangdeboeuf. If there is literature discussing the rights of fathers apart from the political movement to assert those rights, then there should be a separate article at that title, and the same with mothers' rights. BD2412 T 21:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sangdeboeuf, and echo BD2412's comment about a potential separate article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose but there may be still be a possibilit of a separate fathers' rights article should a Wikipedia editor investigate the jurisprudence and analyze the existence of such rights. We should not conflate the movement with the legal concept. Jorahm (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- In many places, fathers have more rights than mothers do. It seems unlikely that there is no Wikipedia article describing that phenomenon. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Notable commentators section
editThe "notable commentators" section does not explain why commentators identified therein should be deemed notable on this issue, let alone at present. There does not appear to be any consistent or identifiable standard for inclusion, and is not being updated. I suggest that the section be removed. Arllaw (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, I agree. Having just glanced at that section, I note that the sources given are two advocacy orgs and a newspaper op-ed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)