Jump to content

Talk:Fathers' rights movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Baskerville citations

[edit]

The 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)[reply]

Parke & Brott (1999) is another poor source for largely similar reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2024

[edit]

Fathers' rights movementFathers' rights – Difference in lemma between Mothers' rights and Fathers' rights movement is discriminatory. HudecEmil (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable commentators section

[edit]

The "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)[reply]

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)[reply]