Talk:Parental rights movement

Lead: Not verified in body
Hi, I was the one who created the AfC so I'd like to continue to improve this article. However, I'm unsure about what part of the lead is being requested to be verified. If you wanted to point out what you believe to be unclear, I'd love to write and find sources. If you have any suggestions about how to clarify, I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi . The tag is there to prompt improvement related to the "far right" descriptor. Which are the best sources to support that content? Can they be summarized in the body of the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject banners
@Dimadick: I think this article falls outside the scope of WikiProject Terrorism. I am not sure all the additional WikiProject banners you added are really necessary. Perhaps the 9 you added can be trimmed to just the most important two or three; like Florida, Sociology and Parenting. While you were adding banners, perhaps you should have replicated the B-class attribute in the first few banners into all those you added, because class appears to be common across all WikiProjects, and can be added to the banner shell too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I usually wait a day or two before rating an article, to see if the rating is going to change. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? Be Bold and reassess it if you think the assessment ought to change, either up or down. The most sure way to change it is to do it yourself. If it is going to change, then your change will provoke others to change it too. You still haven't explained why Terrorism is relevant. The article makes no mention of it and I think this is merely robust political discussion. It is not like this movement has people are setting off explosives and killing people they disagree with. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "You still haven't explained why Terrorism is relevant." It is one of the WikiProjects which cover far-right politics, due to their close association with political violence. The related article on the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States mentions an increase of anti-LGBT violence in the United States:


 * "According to a 2023 report by the Department of Homeland Security, threats of violence against the LGBT community rose in the early-2020s. The FBI also noted a sharp uptick in the number of hate crimes committed against LGBT people, with the 54 percent increase representing the fastest rise in hate crimes of all groups in the country. In New York City, hate crimes against LGBT people doubled from 2021 to 2022, and they grew by 29% in California during the same period. In August 2023, Lauri Carleton, a business owner in Southern California, was shot and killed for keeping a pride flag outside her store. "


 * In other words, the far right is already "killing people they disagree with", and has been doing it throughout this decade. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * However, that is not explained in THIS article. For it to be relevant it needs to be explained - in the article. Never assume knowledge; if it is not mentioned in the article it isn't relevant. Readers know nothing if it hasn't been mentioned by the article concerned. In any case, what DHS and FBI are highlight is an increase in hate crimes, not terrorism. Also, there is no explanation of how that violence is caused by the movement. Correlation, alone, is not indicative of causation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Even as utterly opposed as I am to this misguided and hateful movement, I can't call honestly relate it to terrorism. The 2020s LGBT article can hang that label on the Carleton murder but no similar terroristic activity is attached to the Don't Say Gays. I was also confused by the Psych Wikiproject. It is also unsupported by the text. btw, in case this gets lost in the shuffle, this is an excellent start to an article! Kudos to the editors! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "I was also confused by the Psych Wikiproject." Which WikiProject covers transphobia other than WikiProject Psychology? Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it has to go, just that I don't understand why it's here. My reasoning: We are at least two major removes from psychology. To get from there to here, we have to posit that transphobia is a phenomenon that is firmly within the realm of psychology as opposed to sociology, moral panic, and ignorance (there is no consensus in RS for that), then we have to posit that this particular social movement is attributable to the psychological phenomenon underlying transphobia, then we have to explain that in the body of the article. Finding an RS that says, "The Parental Rights Movement is a manifestation of the psychological condition known as {something}," seems like a major stretch and, frankly, a waste of the effort of what are obviously excellent editors. To me, it would be like adding the Biology Wikiproject because the bigots participants are mammals. Hope that clarifies my question. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

North America bias - WP:WTRMT
I've tried to address the North American perspective bias per the banner but I'm not sure when would be enough material to be adequate to remove the banner, per WP:WTRMT so if I'll leave it to another editor to remove. I've added sections on France and Ireland, although minimal. In the meantime, I will continue to find more examples. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Two closely related thoughts on that: I don't think the banner is useful in this instance, and I don't think that there is an issue to solve. This sort of movement (and even the motivating ideals) seems to be a uniquely North American phenomenon. This particular moral panic appears to be deeply rooted in their current culture wars. I think it would be like looking for international instances of Free Silver, Satanic Ritual Abuse or the Moral Majority. If the movement spreads (which seems unlikely without bedrock changes to certain precepts), then the tag would make sense. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the tag after a suggestion at the AfD, I have no issues with the removal. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"far-right" in lead
What threshold are we seeking to be able to state that this is a far-right movement? We have three opinion pieces, though two of them are in obvious left-leaning publications. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think for a movement like this, we'd probably need more than opinion pieces to label them far-right (possibly researchers/experts), unless that becomes the most common designation for them and it isn't up for dispute. Until then I think we can only say "described as far-right". Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead follows body!
There are a bunch of citations in the lead which are not used in the body. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it is important that content in the lead reflects the content in the body. These citations and statements need to be reflected in the body, otherwise they should be removed. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)