Talk:Family Movement

Notability, article title

I will make sure the network at BCACL of Family support workers is aware of this site. Perhaps they could each add links to their individual organizations - would having dates of the establishment of these organizations be supportive of the thesis, that the "movement" started in the middle of the 20th century? I think that historically in British Columbia, most of the disability orgs are about 50 years old. The current list of organizations has no such dates, should that be changed? Also, why are disabilities other than intellectual ignored? Most disability-related organizations had a similar starting point with families around kitchen tables. Model inclusion. BACIFamily (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This entry is the work of a group of people, the entry is based on well known and established facts and historical evidence. An edit is being made in relation to the concern about style. Not all facts and resources are available to the current author and more evidence is being sourced related to notability. Work is being done to conform to guidelines and help in formatting is appreciated. Concern about editing more popular entries has prevented any additional work on notability until additional references are sourced. The entry is being sent to other potential contributors to get more references from many different organizations that have citations and evidence. Suggestions on how best to avoid deletion during this process would be much appreciated. If you are able to contribute to proof-reading/editing or sourcing more citations resources, please let us know via this talk page. Stefanlorimer (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that "Family Movement" is a recognised concept in itself: the article seems to be essentially a synthesis of different ideas to form a whole which does not appear in any of the sources cited. Making such a synthesis to create an article on a subject which has not previously received significant coverage is contrary to Wikipedia policy, as constituting original research. To qualify for a Wikipedia article a subject should have evidence of satisfying the Notability|notability guidelines, but at present this one does not. I have given a longer explanation on Stefanlorimer's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on the guidelines for notability. Many different very credible academic journal sources have been found that reference the Family Movement and we are working on an edit for both style and notability as fast as possible. A request for input has been made to JamesBWatson about the best way to show these sources. Any suggestions for addition references on the subject from scholars or historians would be appreciated. Stefanlorimer (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This Page Needs a Lot of Work

This page needs a lot of work. I wonder if "Family Movement" is the best term for these organisations? I am not aware of any established scholars using the phrase as a proper noun as implied by the page title. Eg, the sources listed in notes 1 -6 variously describe the Family Movement as "Parent Advocacy Organisations," "voluntary groups," the "Parent Movement" and so on. Wouldn't want to get this movement mistaken for groups such as the Australian Family Movement! There is an obvious focus here on BC and New York. For instance, the start of the timeline in Vancouver in 1952 seems like an arbitrary place to start. I will try and improve this page over the next few weeks. Clearly it is an important page.--Dave Earl (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly does! I can help with general tidying up and will be changing to a more conventional reference style which does not expose bare urls. --Mirokado (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As you see from the update for Groce 1996, some of the citations will be rather long. Since many involve page numbers and different page ranges may well be cited in the article as it is improved, a short form of inline reference related to a full citation is needed. This change shows a single citation and a Harvard-style short form reference, in this case as part of the text for an inline reference with several citations. --Mirokado (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The ref update shows the substitution of an inline ref by a short form ref using {{sfn}} and the corresponding citation. In this case the citation is a chapter from an edited book, so I have used {{cite encyclopedia}}. Using sfn like this results in short inline reference text which minimises interruption to the flow of the article text in the editing window. References to identical work and page range are automatically consolidated.

I recommend this method for this article as explained here, but there are other ways of producing tidy references. If an existing editor wishes to do things differently, please by all means say so and do the tidying up as you wish, as long as the article is in fact tidied up! Otherwise I will continue to update refs based on this pattern. Other editors are entirely welcome to help with this of course.

If you update the refs, please add isbn or whatever if available and check things like authors' names, I have corrected one so far. --Mirokado (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The third update adds a journal citation using {{cite journal}} (I generated this using {{cite doi|10.1093/schbul/sbj066}} in my user space and then editing the resulting citation for the article to add |ref=harv and move the date after the authors: this saves a lot of work if a doi is available and avoids typos). --Mirokado (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)