Talk:Parental dividend

COI tag (October 2022)
, you made a COI disclosure of a familial connection to Ray Burggraf, the spouse of Shirley Burggraf, who invented the concept that this article is about. You should make a similar disclosure here, not least because I have identified some neutrality issues in the article as-written. signed,Rosguill talk 22:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I’m a novice Wiki editor, but a rather experienced researcher; always happy to make changes in favor of neutrality, especially if something seems unsubtantiated. Which specific sections or sentences aren’t well supported? Global Microscope (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest disclosure instructions are available at WP:COI (you should post a notification template to this talk page and your user page). As for the writing, I think that a lot of the neutrality issues can be fixed by moving from declarative sentences to subjunctive sentences (i.e. instead of ...a parental dividend removes the burden of paying for retirement twice, write ....a parental dividend would remove the burden..., and/or clearly attribute claims to proponents of the theory in the text (e.g. According to Burggraf...). There's also several superfluous adjectives and adverbs that should be trimmed (e.g. the concept draws several direct connections, including links between the extraordinary expenses associated with raising children, both "direct" and "extraordinary" provide unwarranted emphasis).
 * Additionally, some of the claims in the article appear to use primary sources to demonstrate that parental dividend has become central to much economic, feminist and political debate. It is not enough to cite examples of reliable sources mentioning parental dividends to make this claim, you need to provide reliable sources that directly state that parental dividends are central to economic, feminist and political debate. As currently written, these claims are original research that do not belong in a Wikipedia article.
 * To summarize, the article needs any claim that suggests the theory is true or important, (or false/bad, but that's not currently an issue with this article) to be removed unless it's directly supported by a secondary source. We should be neutrally describing the mechanisms of the theory, without introducing any value judgments or assertions of (in)accuracy unless asserted directly by independent reliable sources. signed,Rosguill talk 14:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I was aware of the need for COI disclosure for biographies, but not for pages focused on an academic subject. I’ll try to create the proper notification.  (I do not have a paid relationship with authors mentioned in this article, nor do I intend to discuss or coordinate subject matter with persons named within.) I created this page entirely out of personal interest (and an abundance of sources) and hope you’ll find it interesting and neutral once your suggestions have been addressed.  Thanks. Global Microscope (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your assistance. Would you kindly take a look at recent edits to this article and let me know if your COI concerns have been fully addressed?  If not, further suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Global Microscope (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your improvements were good, I made a few final adjustments and am happy to remove the neutrality and COI tags now. signed,Rosguill talk 15:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Really appreciate the help. Global Microscope (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)