User talk:Michael H 34/sandbox 1

=One Editor's Experience=

To date, I have added a large amount of content to three articles. I have been accused of introducing a POV on two of them Fathers' rights movement and No-fault divorce. The third article, The China Study, (about a book on nutrition) was nominated for deletion, with the result being no consensus. I have also created a small number of articles: Parents' rights movement, Fathers' rights movement by country, Fathers' rights movement in the USA and Child support by country. Although I have on occasion stated my points strongly, and once referred to an edit as the worst I have ever encountered including vandalism, I have always remained polite.

Early removal of sourced content
A fellow editor noted that 50k is the suggested maximum size with respect to some articles. The Fathers' rights movement article was above the 50k limit and some of the content (some of it added by me), although sourced, did not seem appropriate for a good article. I deleted a significant amount of sourced content (some of it added by me) in a balanced and neutral way. I did not believe that this was a violation of Wikipedia policy. Deleting sourced content is sometimes necessary to improve an article, by creating room for better sourced content and by making the article less wordy. I was praised for removing the sourced content in a neutral way.

Article is improved
Criticism was attached to many of the various sections of the article rather than included in a section labeled criticism. I seemed to be the only editor adding the views of the members of the fathers' rights movement, and I relied on others to add most of the criticism. I did add a criticism to the Shared Parenting section (and later expanded and refined other criticism). This may have been most efficient because I was familiar with the names and words to search for the views of the fathers' rights movement although I was not familiar with Google Books until I worked on The China Study.

Additions to the article based on a book by Richard Collier and Sally Sheldon
The edits of another editor of the article lead me to diminish my assumption of good faith in her edits.

The following unattributed phrases were added to the article:


 * "...family law has swung too far, establishing fathers as the 'new victims' of family law"
 * "...legal regulations encourage men to be fathers when they can't"

I applauded the entire addition at first because frankly, I wanted to take a break from editing and the edit was made to a section that needed to be expanded. The 'swung too far' - 'new victims' sentence is biased for more than one reason. (1) the 'new victim' phrase implies that there must always be a victim of family law (a bias that adds nothing more to the article) and (2) the sentence makes use of the argument of "diminished advantage" for men. Through another citation, Richard Collier was connected positively to the phrase 'facts of power', adding support for this view.

The legal regulations sentence was later expanded to add "because of divorce" after the phrase "when they can't." This contradicts the premise that legal regulations encourage because after numerous edits the editor explained that the fact that fathers get any parenting time at all is the legal regulation that encourages them to be fathers. Information related to this explanation was not included in the article.

I politely stated my objections to the phrase legal regulations encourage. After the editor announced that she was leaving the article, I wrote that she would be welcome back.

Before the Collier and Sheldon edit, I viewed this editor's numerous links to Wikipedia policy as attempts to be helpful. After the Collier and Sheldon edit, I consider this editor to be an editor with an agenda, who engages in Wikilawyering. The editor later became a Wikipedia administrator, and she sought advice from others to "deal with" my edits.

The China Study
I expanded this article to include more information from the book. I was challenged by another editor to add notable criticism. This editor viewed the article as promoting a fringe theory. She decided that since no notable criticism of the book had been added to the article, then the book itself was not notable. She nominated the article for deletion. The final decision of the nomination was no consensus.

No-fault divorce
After making just a few relatively minor edits to the article, another user accused me of attempting to add POV to the article. Although he or she was condescending to me, I took no offense. I was polite and learned something about law. I later organized and expanded the article.

Parental alienation syndrome
The article as it existed was incomplete because it provided no evidence that anybody believes that parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is valid in some cases. I expanded the article.

Another editor, the same editor who added the aforementioned edits based on a book by Collier and Sheldon to the Fathers' rights movement article, also expanded the article. She demoted a sentence about the "no position" view of the American Pychological Association to a phrase surrounded by criticism, making it seem that the no position view of the APA was additional criticism of PAS. The other editor made this change without discussing it on the talk page after insisting that I discuss my edits on the talk page before making them. She stated that I would get in trouble and left what she referred to as a "warning" on my talk page.

I continued to edit the article based on Wikipedia policy and I evaluated her concerns objectively. But for the first and only time (other than on this sandbox), I discussed her behavior (on the PAS talk page). Not once did I resort to name-calling and I never referred to her as a bully or a wikilawyer. After I provided this commentary on her behavior, she deleted a page that she kept, which included a list of my edits, which were in her view, evidence that I was tendentious editor. She also offered to start over, and possibly for old times' sake, once more told me that I was a POV editor. I wrote "Happy New Year" after her edit, and after a few days removed it from my talk page.