Talk:Father's quota

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessica.treffner, Elisegrongstad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): K.Maurer. Peer reviewers: Jherna42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
I've added a NPOV check template to the article because a) it seems on a glance to contain more arguments for one side then for the other with just the bare minimum needed to not have a completely bias point of view and b) it's sources are not always neutral in the first place, for instance Aftenposten is a right of center newspaper, in other words although it's generally considered to be among the more reliable newspapers in Norway it might be slightly biased towards political parties opposed to the quota in question and adding another source for opinion statistics might be advisable c) some arguments/citations don't seem to truly be relevant to the argument although they might appear to be at a glance, in this case I'm thinking about the breast feeding citation. The reason I object to it is that as far as I know most of the supporters of the quota don't suggest increasing the quota at the expense of maternity leave when talking about a larger share of the parental leave being paternity leave but suggest adding paternal leave on top of the current parental leave as well as adding to the maternity leave something demonstrated by a recent statement by the current center-left coalition about plans to add to the paternity leave next year where according to the local both the shared and the father only part is extended. So while it seems like a valid anti-quota argument on a first glance I think most of those on the pro-quota side would very much disagree about that notion.

So while nothing in the article is technically wrong pr say it seems very much biased against the quota in question from my point of view. I also don't seem to be alone in this view since the average objectivity rate of this page at this point in time is 2,4/5 based on the assessment of 5 people. However I am somewhat bias in favor of this quota. Therefore I'd very much like someone that's neutral to the topic to come here and have a look at it and hear what they think. Ps. If I'm right about the article being bias then it can probably be relatively easily fixed by adding more content, do not delete any of it's current content please. Luredreier (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New time limit
If Im not mistaken its 14 weeks for the dad after the child is born or adopted and 9 weeks for the mom (3 before and 6 after). As of 2013. 176.11.68.59 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Lacking in objectivity.
This article seems to be strongly biased. The data and sources given appear to have been chosen to support abolition of the daddy quota while opposing viewpoints and poll results have been omitted. It is also worth mentioning that the article has been edited by mostly the same people who wrote the Norwegian version (containing the same material), which has already been marked as lacking in objectivity. I strongly suggest using alternative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBBsyndrome (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The section on scholarly debate doesn’t cite peer reviewed sources - it’s just a cherry-picked list of comments scholars and some non-scholars have made to news sources. Also, the over-representation of anti-father’s leave comments in the first half is ridiculous and clearly not a balanced presentation of the debate. Lijil (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Return NPOV tag
I agree that this article seems strongly biased. It includes a lot of quotations representing the opinions of commentators on one side of the issue, and absolutely no references to what the arguments of the other side might even be. It does not seem to conform to the requirements of a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.172.164 (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Father's quota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314065817/http://www.ilo.org:80/wow/Articles/lang--en/WCMS_081359/index.htm to http://www.ilo.org/wow/Articles/lang--en/WCMS_081359/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104002529/http://www.dagsavisen.no:80/innenriks/article511058.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article511058.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101020044004/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/nyheter/iriks/article3860173.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3860173.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106050733/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/meninger/debatt/article3885971.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/article3885971.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006093130/http://www.universitetsavisa.no/ua_lesmer.php?kategori=nyheter&dokid=47de94cd414969.81665052 to http://www.universitetsavisa.no/ua_lesmer.php?kategori=nyheter&dokid=47de94cd414969.81665052
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704173525/http://www.ssb.no:80/forskning/artikler/2011/6/1308826961.58.html to http://www.ssb.no/forskning/artikler/2011/6/1308826961.58.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703014955/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article4161374.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article4161374.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV (again)
I've once again restored the NPOV tag, for the same reasons discussed above. It appears that the issues that were raised then still apply now. -2003:CA:83CC:A600:3C14:F0B0:96D4:10B1 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

About Sweden and Iceland
Shouldn't there be something about Sweden and Iceland? --Per W (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Formerly paragraph; seems overly offensive
Literary theorist Jørgen Lorentzen and sociologist Øystein Gullvåg Holter have supported the father's quota, arguing that it makes fathers "caring and present." Jørgen Lorentzen characterized the opinions of Bongard and Ottesen Kennair as "bio fascism" and "psycho nonsense," stating that they should "abdicate as researchers." Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)