Talk:Father's quota

Norway Unassessed

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

I've added a NPOV check template to the article because a) it seems on a glance to contain more arguments for one side then for the other with just the bare minimum needed to not have a completely bias point of view and b) it's sources are not always neutral in the first place, for instance Aftenposten is a right of center newspaper, in other words although it's generally considered to be among the more reliable newspapers in Norway it might be slightly biased towards political parties opposed to the quota in question and adding another source for opinion statistics might be advisable c) some arguments/citations don't seem to truly be relevant to the argument although they might appear to be at a glance, in this case I'm thinking about the breast feeding citation. The reason I object to it is that as far as I know most of the supporters of the quota don't suggest increasing the quota at the expense of maternity leave when talking about a larger share of the parental leave being paternity leave but suggest adding paternal leave on top of the current parental leave as well as adding to the maternity leave something demonstrated by a recent statement by the current center-left coalition about plans to add to the paternity leave next year where according to the local both the shared and the father only part is extended. So while it seems like a valid anti-quota argument on a first glance I think most of those on the pro-quota side would very much disagree about that notion.

So while nothing in the article is technically wrong pr say it seems very much biased against the quota in question from my point of view. I also don't seem to be alone in this view since the average objectivity rate of this page at this point in time is 2,4/5 based on the assessment of 5 people. However I am somewhat bias in favor of this quota. Therefore I'd very much like someone that's neutral to the topic to come here and have a look at it and hear what they think. Ps. If I'm right about the article being bias then it can probably be relatively easily fixed by adding more content, do not delete any of it's current content please. Luredreier (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]