Talk:Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

Neutrality?
This sounds to me more like an essay supporting the amendment than a neutral presentation of the topic. Though you have a commendable number of references in explaining support for the amendment, the opposition section seems to rely on unnamed opponents ("some claim", "some hold", etc.) which isn't a great practice. Also, every paragraph in the opposition section seems to end with a response from proponents, while the section of arguments in favor doesn't have that practice.

Statements like "this argument confuses" or "these sources do not provide explanation" are the opinion of the author and aren't presented neutrally. Instead, attribute those arguments to a particular source. Otherwise, the article is non-neutral and represents original research.

Hope this helps, Npdoty (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues Resolved?
All of the materials pointed out in the earlier talk entry have been addressed, and I believe they have been addressed successfully. I hope you will agree. I appreciate the input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ramey (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recent changes to the article have been a substantial improvement, including some citations of the opposition's positions. As it is, I still wouldn't be comfortable removing the neutrality or missing citation tags, however. It still seems to me that the article is written to favor a particular point of view (opposition arguments are presented with counterarguments, proposition arguments without), that potentially controversial claims are presented as facts ("traditional Supreme Court position", "greatest shift of power in history", "these opponents rarely address"), and that the role of ParentalRights.org is given undue emphasis. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest.
 * I believe the best way to improve the neutrality of the article would be to try to involve other editors who have a substantial interest in the topic but don't hold the same point of view. If there aren't many editors interested, that might be a sign that the article should be shortened to present only the facts rather than detailed arguments on either side. Npdoty (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The neutrality and improvement tags were removed, even though I tried to make clear here that I thought there were numerous problems remaining. I do think the article has been improved, but there's plenty of issues remaining. To try to identify the issues more specifically, I've put tags inline where I believe citations are needed, more specificity is needed, or where claims are original research or improper synthesis. In general, the article should not draw these conclusions itself, but cite reliable secondary sources for the content. I also believe the article could benefit from other interested editors; there seem to be issues of wp:conflict of interest -- the tag I've added may draw interest from other editors. Npdoty (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with npdoty; in general, the article follows the arguments of proponents far too closely, presents them as fact rather than partisan arguments. It also needs to cover opposition to the amendment (which admittedly might be difficult since this thing seems to be more of a "red meat" diversion for hardline social conservatives rather than a serious proposal being debated in the mainstream.) One place to start might be this about.com article which describes "numerous 'poison pills' that would prevent [the amendment] from being supported by mainstream civil libertarians." TiC (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the more closely I work on this article, the worse it gets. So far as I can tell this is mostly an inane internecine controversy between homeschooling advocates, with virtually no mainstream attention. I really don't know how to cover that neutrally! TiC (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the input of Npdoty and TiC, and apologize for how long edits are taking. If anyone can encourage outside editors, that would be welcome and appreciated. My desire really is for this article to be neutral. There is already an entire website presenting the pro- argument. Thank you for helping me work toward making this Wiki-worthy. Michael Ramey (talk) 10 December 2010

Opponents of the bill would of course be the American Adoption industry. It has been noted that the Adoption Industry is a multi-billion dollar unregulated industry and many have said that as it is practiced now, adoption violates the constitution and various human rights. Abortion is under constant review from the civil court, but it's foil (adoption) has NEVER been reviewed as a practice to see if it is constitutional. Where it violates a child's right to be raised by their own family, and a parent's right to have equal protection under the law, and the adoption is given MORE THAN EQUAL protection to a child who is not their's by blood, then the practice of adoption violates the US Constitution. Look for those conservatives who hate abortion and see adoption as a cure-all and you will find your true opponents to this law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.150.35 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Opposition from Homeschooling Advocates"?
This is a gross misrepresentation of what a majority of the homeschooling community believes. It is true that a minority of individuals in the homeschool "world" do oppose this amendment, but it is quite obvious that homeschoolers are the main driving force behind the bill. The way the article presents it, one would assume that large opposition is coming from homeschoolers. 1st there is not sufficient amount of evidence to even include that as a point. Secondly, if anything, the paragraph should be changed to "support from homeschooling advocates" because that is the reality. See https://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/ https://www.homeschoolersofmaine.org/news-issues/parental-rights/ http://www.homeschoolacademy.com/blog/parental-rights-ammendment-protecting-right-to-homeschool/

I will not make any changes to the page right now, but just wanted to throw this out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grwise1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Newest Version
The section about the current version of the amendment is out of date. The newest version, proposed Nov 2017, is https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/121/text. Ir is slightly different. I can't edit it well right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.32.102.123 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Newest Version Resolved
The section about the current version of the amendment is up to date as of November 15, 2020. Added https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/48, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/121 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/36. Valcour99x (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the section "Opposition from United Nations"
The section Opposition from United Nations has several POV issues that I don't know how to resolve. It says "Russia ominously noted"; it's not clear to me what exactly is meant by this, and it doesn't seem to be based on the source provided. It also says "The assertion that parents knock children’s rights out of “balance” directly contravenes the Convention [...]". To me (not being an expert on the subject) that sounds like a claim that one of the sides would make and the other would reject, but it's stated as a fact. "Notably, the Russian addition was sourced word for word from the Convention", though on the face of it a verifiable statement, also sounds to me like a one-sided argument building on the POV claim in the preceding sentence; e.g. the other side might argue that the verbatim sourcing from the Convention is selective. Joriki (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I removed the whole section entirely. In addition to being biased, the information given has nothing to do with this Amendment. The claim that the UN "opposes" it is plainly false, as all comments provided were on a completely different international treaty. Anything added that tries to link the two, especially in a way that falsely implies any endorsement or rejection from foreign bodies, violates WP:OR. Loytra (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)