Talk:Men's rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Feminism tagging[edit]

Could someone give me a rundown on why WP Feminism tagged this article as high importance? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it is an topic discussed and studied by feminist scholars? Not sure about "high", but definitely not low. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism asking here if there still is an uncertainty on the subject? Logictheo (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it should stay that way. This Mens Movement is an important feminist topic. VisaBlack (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The criminalization of marital rape Section[edit]

I propose these words be removed from the Criminalization of Martial Rape section:-

"Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom"

The source supporting this is a speech made in 1993 by a lone, [Redacted per WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK] who has not been active in over a decade. The reference[1] is from an unreviewed book, from 2000, by a highly partisan author who provides no sources to support his assertion. The statement is in the present tense and also interpreting a primary source. I know of no other UK MRA, either past or present, who has holds this position. There are obvious wp:undue, wp:rs and other issues. CSDarrow (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record. The person who is associated with the redacted text has been dead for sometime. Thus [Redacted per WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK] is unfounded by definition. CSDarrow (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Make the edit and follow Wikipedia:BRD. The source in question in my opinion needs to be backed up by another source. The Author is a senior lecturer and the source in question is a tertiary source. Per WP:WPNOTRS, introductory textbooks are tertiary sources, and the source in question explicitly states that it is an introductory textbook in the title. I agree with removal unless it is backed up with another source. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest attribution to the senior lecturer and person who may have stated the statement that is being debated, but I don't like putting words in people's mouthes and this could also be a WP:BLP violation, as this can be considered polemic by certain people and this person may not necessarily believe the things he is being spoken of saying. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Some sources: 1 2 3 4 5, I support striking UK and have the sentence read "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists". Also I disagree that the Dunphy source is not RS. It is published by the Edinburgh University Press and WP:WPNOTRS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, introductory textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources are helpful for overviews or summaries, and in evaluating due weight, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.", and furthermore WP:TERTIARY says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. ". There is nothing in the policy prohibiting tertiary sources being used. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your source #4 cites this very WP article as evidence for that particular claim, so I don't think that one is suitable. Reyk YO! 11:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't see what it linked to, my apologies. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your sources are absurd. Please find me a prominent MRA who has held this view and repeated it. These are the requirements of Undue Weight. Wikipedia requires its information, in this case words written/spoken by others, to be verifiable. Also conflating India with the West can be problematic. Your suggested edit is painting the whole Men Rights Movement as being in support of marital rape. Agreeing with Marital Rape as a concept is a very controversial opinion to hold. You'd expect links to those expressing such a view easily found and a torrent of criticism from others. I can find neither, and apparently neither can you.CSDarrow (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Prominent MRAs" are typically in the form of non-RS blogs like AVFM, where that sentiment is absolutely expressed. Just google "marital rape mra" and tons of them come up. This is not what WP:UNDUE means, and most of the sources listed are academic books that describe the behavior of the movement. Sources do not need to be from the movement itself. Please be WP:NICE. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your google search does not result in what you have suggested.18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
1 2 3 4 5. Another AVFM piece is here at avfm/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/to-rape-or-not-to-rape/ - Again, not suggesting these should be used as RS, but most of the 'primary' source material for MRA stuff is non-RS blogs. As you've requested, they are links to a view easily found along with the criticism. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
All links provided are either editorial or personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.71.98 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
University Presses are not automatically reliable sources. CSDarrow (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
And what makes this one unreliable according to what policy? As already noted, this professor is a senior lecturer and this university is not a fringe educational institution. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
None of those points automatically assure reliability. Read reliable sources CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, from WP:RS: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses., and Secondary sources, such as Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.. The only other substantial portions of policy dealing with books have been pasted above (the stuff dealing with tertiary sources), and statements saying to not use a self-published book, which this is clearly not. In my reading of the policy it absolutely passes WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Read your first statement very carefully. In particular "vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable" has to be the case for the second clause to be applicable. University presses publish a range of publications from the fully peer reviewed to the mere checking of spelling and grammar. This type of publication is not rigorously peer reviewed, else it would have been stated somewhere, it is not. CSDarrow (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Free Northerner and Vox Day come to mind for explicitly saying this, I recall seeing articles on A Voice for Men and the Spearhead against the concept of marital rape also. Warren Farrell himself once said "Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen". All MRAs obviously don't believe this but many do --94.175.85.144 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hearsay is not sufficient. Find sources of sufficient reliability for your statements. Then demonstrate the point they support is of sufficient weight to merit inclusion in this page. CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point, the fact that lots of notable MRAs have written against the criminalisation of marital rape doesn't mean that the ones in the UK necessarily do, but I don't see what's wrong with the source in question? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless a credible case, of sufficient weight, can be made that the MRM in the UK supports Martial Rape, then I will take 123chess456's advice and follow Wikipedia:BRD, thus removing the words in the entry. CSDarrow (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82 you have reverted an edit that patently violates WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Explain to me why a comment by a lone, no longer active, MRA in the 1990's satisfies WP:UNDUE. CSDarrow (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made my points and you've made yours, its time for others to weigh in. I don't see the point in continuously going around in circles. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@PearlSt82 Then those who further discuss this I hope will take into account the following from WP:UNDUE. Which I assume you have read and as you can imagine I am left puzzled as to the stance you have taken. To quote:-
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
For you to revert your edit would be an honorable thing to do.
CSDarrow (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the source itself, the MRM was in an "embryonic" state at the time. I think at the very least that means that it wasn't very coherent. Kind of like feminism in the 20s,there were bra burnings, campaigns for separatist lesbian society, and killing of all men. Yet a lot of modern people who consider themselves feminists don't agree with those positions, and those that do are now referred to as "radical feminists". Likewise, if you go on websites in the most radical of the manosphere, like Reddit's [reddit.com/r/TheRedPill "The Red Pill"], you can see a large difference even there. A lot of their contributors hate" men's rights". On the other hand, to use AVfM, that's more of the center of the MRM. On return of kings the writer states "the very values that are taught here and on many other manosphere sites that inexplicably have been attacked, disparaged, and even sought for eradication by the American media and blogosphere, men’s rights activists (my emphasis, not the article's) , “PUA haters”, and progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center". In my opinion, Roger Whitcomb could, if he existed today, be placed in the more anti men's rights movement area of the men's movement. I suggest attributing him to "Roger Whitcomb, a member of the MRM...". Also, sorry for the wall of text, but the source implies that Whitcomb was against change, while a wide portion of the MRM actually wants to remove gender roles, create single and stay at home dads, have men get alimony and child support, which never happened throughout history.

TL;DR Roger Whitcomb was a radical, comparable to what a radical feminist is to the feminist movement. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, Whitcomb might be placed somewhere rather interesting. But please let us not exchange our opinions here. Instead let's stick to reliable, secondary sources. Dunphy is one of them. Let me remind you that this isn't the place to rewrite history and spread myths about the 1920s that, in your view, were characterized by bra burnings (that didn't happen in the 60s, let alone 20s) and "campaigns for separatist lesbian society, and killing of all men". But you are free to go the radical feminism talk page and share your theories about bra burnings, lesbian societies and plans to kill the male species there. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm copy to copy and paste what was said to me earlier in the post for making a statement like this: "Hearsay is not sufficient. Find sources of sufficient reliability for your statements. Then demonstrate the point they support is of sufficient weight to merit inclusion in this page." It's okay that you think he is a "radical" but the reference says otherwise. There are plenty of MRAs that are against spousal rape legislation, I gave some examples earlier in the page. This is against the point though, the arguments by 123chess456 and CSDarrow are WP:OR and do not warrant the removal of the text --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As previously uninvolved in this content dispute, I would just like to state that WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Tutelary (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm repeating exactly what he said earlier in the page. Am I allowed to make original research as well now or just the guy who supports your POV? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a hearty accusation and I beseech that you stop that. You are allowed to engage in WP:NOR to do a certain amount of things, like check sources, check books, weigh certain options in content, but if you're trying to insert original research into the article, that's not allowed. It's allowed because we can't obviously cite every single sentence when we're arguing on the talk page whether we're supposed to do X, Y, or Z. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. If editors want to voice their opinion on Roger Whitcomb, marital rape, radical feminism or the alleged bra burnings and planned men killings of the 1920s, they should do it elsewhere. What are editors supposed to do with statements like "In my opinion, Roger Whitcomb could, if he existed today..."? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I know exactly what you are using this website for, after your recent edits this is WP:SPADE. So you accept that I can discuss other men's rights websites and speakers that are against spousal rape legislation? Even Warren Farrell is and he's the closest the movement has to an academic --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm here to improve Wikipedia. Now, I feel that CSNarrow is in the right here, because it's an older source and may not properly reflect what the MRM actually believes in today. I would argue this way for any other mentions as well. Does Warren Farrell properly sympathize and participate with MRM? Yes. Is he their spokesperson? I don't think so. So we'd need a collective, more update to date source to state that they do not support marital rape laws. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that we should change it to say that it used to be against marital rape laws? If the problem is that it is an older viewpoint of theirs then we could just move it into their history? It's safe to say that, at some point, members of the UK men's rights movement were staunchly against marital rape laws, as well as other members of the group. I don't think it would be fair to remove it just because some men's rights editors here don't support it. We already have a good source to support the fact that the UK men's rights movement supported it at some point. I'm hoping that somebody writes something on them soon, it's gathering support but you don't see much about it in print, other than in news editorials that is --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
How about we say "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape have been opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom, the United States and India"? If we change the "are opposed" to "have been opposed" then it gets rid of the problem of it not necessarily standing up to what the current UK movement endorses --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Edinburgh University Press are very notable. Without looking very hard I found that they publish over 35 academic journals including ones in Law, Philosophy, Literary Studies and Politics, and are a part of University Publishing Online, an online platform for Cambridge University Press. It actually seems to be one of the better references and shouldn't be removed because some editors WP:DONTLIKEIT --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
University presses have many types of publications, from the heavily peer reviewed to the those, eg books, receiving merely the checking of spelling and grammar. A publication does not automatically inherit the reputation of the presses other publications, any publications reputation is stand alone. A peer reviewed publication will however inherit the presses reputation for peer reviewing, but this should also be verifiable through other means. No one is disputing that Whitcomb said these words in 1993. The argument is are they are sufficient to support the statement:- "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom". My position is they aren't, a position I feel is close to self evidently true. CSDarrow (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a reputable source and approaches the topic from a relatively neutral stance. It says that men's rights activists did say that, not all men's rights activists honestly, but that it is a considerable viewpoint held by many members of the movement. Furthermore, it does show that it's from a reliable publisher, which adds to the credibility of the writer and the research that went into it --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Read my comment to Sonicyouth86 below. CSDarrow (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sonicyouth86 This is about the UK and not the USA or elsewhere. I do not think anyone is disputing Whitcomb said words to this effect in 1993. The question is do his words constitute sufficent evidence to support the notion:- "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom".
Apart from the fact that Whitcomb was an outlier, no longer active in the MRM and these words are from 1993; Jimbo Wales is very clear about attributing opinions to groups. To quote Jimbo Wales from WP:UNDUE
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
The Whitcomb reference in clearly inadequate to support the notion that the MRM in the UK supports the idea of Marital Rape. If the MRM in the UK supports this then there should be other evidence, and in fact is a requirement of Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think your biggest problem is that the wording suggests that all MRM supporters are against the criminalization of spousal rape. How about we change the "are opposed" to "have been opposed" or something similar to this. It's clearly a good source to say that UK members have in the past, ones who were notable enough to be covered on a book on sociology in general, and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to represent the up-to-date goings on of the movement, just the things that the subject is notable for --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that it is also a dubious claim, only supported by one single reference. You could attribute it to the author, but the work may fail reliability in any case. Zambelo; talk 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You think that it is dubious and you are entitled to your opinion. The secondary and primary sources that were presented here and elsewhere are very clear. Dunphys introductory book that was published by Edinburgh University Press does absolutely not fail variability. I suggest you read WP:V first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The assertion carries undue weight. A single source cannot make such a sweeping claim - mainly because there are plenty of other authors who would dispute it. See WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. " and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". The views of a single author is a minority opinion, and should be treated as such. Zambelo; talk 23:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors and where are the reliable secondary sources that dispute it? The view that men's rights activists oppose the criminalization of marital rape is supported by all reliable secondary sources that have anything to say on that issue. Plenty of primary sources – from A Voice for Men opinion pieces to MRM Reddit threads – were presented here. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a case of activist editors deciding that they know more about a topic than the academics who write the sources. We aren't here to perform WP:OR, there are other wikis for that. The article has a reliably sourced section that describes the attitudes of certain people within the men's rights movement. I suggest that we reword it to make it evident that it is only certain members of the UK movement that are against it. It should satisfy everybody here as it makes it completely WP:DUE and means we don't have to remove reliably sourced content --94.175.85.144 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If a group holds a view it is a requirement to be able to find proponents of that view, as stated by Jimbo Wales. If an extremely small minority holds that view it then has no place in Wikipedia. You should not refer to editors as activist editors.CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No Sonicyouth86 that is not the way it works. Sources attributing a view to a group must satisfy the conditions set down by Jumbo Wales, please read them again. It should be possible to find MRAs in the UK who have firmly expressed that view. Nobody as yet has done so, apart from finding an inactive MRA from 1993. That is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. I find it astonishing that you would propose Reddit threads as sufficient. AvFM is from the USA not the UK, and the article is inadequate when properly scrutinized. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which sources support it? If there are more sources, then by all means, add them to the article. It isn't OR to notice that a single source cannot apply to such a broad statement about an entire movement comprised of diverse components. There is also no attribution to be seen. Also, where in Dunphy's book does he say that the MRM in the UK is opposed to the criminalisation of marital rape? Could you provide the page number and quote for verification? Zambelo; talk 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that the wording be changed to show that it's only some of the UK movement that are against it, although I know that other MRAs, including Farrell, support this view. The page number and quotation is listed in the references. You cannot reference from a book on Wikipedia without providing the page number. I think it's a good source and has due weight to be included in the article, it just takes a little rewording --94.175.85.144 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide the citation of where on p142 it is mentioned? Zambelo; talk 01:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

94.175.85.144, your suggested rewording does not result in Wikipedia's and in fact Jimbo Wales conditions being satisfied, see WP:UNDUE. To suggest Warren Farrell, who is from the USA, holds that view is beneath contempt. Remember this is about the UK. Warren Farrell is one of the most moderate and respected voices in the gender issues debate, I am not aware he identifies as an MRA. CSDarrow (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you read his books? Here is a direct quotation: "Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen". I don't know if I'd say he's one of the most moderate or respected voices, for one thing he's supported the hate site A Voice for Men --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am deleting the reference to the UK MRM and Marital Rape for a second time. Jimbo Wales is very clear on the criteria for attributing a view to group, see WP:UNDUE. These criteria are not even being remotely satisfied by the source(s) provided atm. I find it astonishing that anyone, let alone an experienced editor, would argue they are. If my edit is reverted then we have reached an impasse and outside help will be needed. CSDarrow (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The article has been locked for one week due to the edit warring. You can spend that time trying to obtain a consensus for resolving the dispute. If after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My edit has been reverted by a editor who has played no part in the discussion here, not even to explain their reversion. The explanation in the edit note suggests the editor in question is not even unaware of the discussion here. I find this troubling. I shall make arrangements for suitable outside help. CSDarrow (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been quasi following the discussion here but my revert was more on procedural grounds. The content had been there for months. There's a content dispute and BRD needs to be followed and not a slow edit war. The source appears RS at first glance as it's academic (and any discussion about it's use as a source needs to go to RSN). Frankly I don't care one way or the other, but the edit war needed to stop and the page is currently in its pre-edit war state thanks to Bbb23. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You have contributed nothing to this lengthy discussion yet felt fit to revert an edit. You did not even have the courtesy to explain here the rational behind your edit. For someone who has been following the discussion your edit note is puzzling, perhaps you could elaborate? Your post justification is thin at best and pays little attention to the points raised, especially those referring to the principles set down by Jimbo Wales. I think we have the right to expect better of you.CSDarrow (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I gave a very clear reason in my edit summary. Also WP:AAJ. There are a number of issues being discussed here but no consensus. The remove/add/remove needed to stop. If y'all can't agree, start an RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The "WP:AAJ" you speak of is part of WP:UNDUE and you have actually contributed to the 'remove/add/remove' you have objected to. CSDarrow (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is unreasonable, Bbb23. None of the terms of probation were breached, as far as I can tell, and the 1R rule wasn't either. What if consensus cannot be reached, should content that isn't supported by sources remain in the article indefinitely? Zambelo; talk 05:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is "tired and going off-wiki", so I guess it's time to discuss and gain consensus. Could someone provide the citation of where on p142 of the source it is mentioned that the MRM is opposed to the criminalisation of marital rape in the UK? Zambelo; talk 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop edit waring and removing sourced content. Here is the page, you can read the section (and much of the book if you feel like actually doing some research) here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NVPQkt0bVpAC&pg=PA142&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
"The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated [i.e. this view is seen by the researcher as reflective of the movements views at the time] by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream') and for the Child Support Act"
Feel free to read more of the chapter, it makes it clear that his voice was very close to how the movement saw things at the time. It's a decent, well-referenced source from a reputable publisher. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason to remove --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you cite exactly where the author mentions 'marital rape'? Zambelo; talk 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Completely agreed, and furthermore the book was written by a scholar of gender studies published by a major university press, which passes WP:RS with flying colors. I also agree that any judgments to the contrary should be coming from RSN, as no compelling reasons for its removal have been listed here. PearlSt82 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think some of the editors here need to take a step back and consider how the academic system works. These books are edited by reputable publishers and are heavily footnoted. I have not seen a good argument for its removal. I know that some of the MRA editors here maybe don't share the view concerning marital rape but that doesn't mean it is up to you to remove it. We are not academics and it is not our place to restructure the article around our own personal views on the topic. I have seen no evidence that it is a poor source and do not support attempts to censor the movements history --94.175.85.144 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Break[edit]

I posted on NPOVN[2] with 3 sources other than Dunphy that describe the UKMM - United Kingdom Men's Movement - as advocating for the abolition of marital rape and rape in the context of family law and domestic violence (The UKMM is the organization whitcomb is from). The sources are The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance (page 60) and Feminist Perspectives on Family Law & Violence, Gender and Justice by Wykes & Wels. I might add also that the UKMM's own website which has moved to "the cheltnam group" talks alot about "False rape allegations in the matrimonial area" and lists false rape as one of its own campaigns.
That said there is only evidence here of the UKMM campaigning like this. It would be my suggestion that the article text be changed to attribute the view of the UK group to the UKMM specifically because that's what the sources say so that it doesn't look like all or many UK men's rights groups hold this view--Cailil talk 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you posted links to the sources you are proposing. UKMM from I can determine is an organization of unknown numbers, possible even one, that is really of unknown significance. I personally have never come across any activity by them in many, many years. The only thing I really know about them is Whitcomb. Their web page is very amateurish and it has no reference to supporting Marital Rape or any specifically contemporary issues. From their page stats they have received between 0 and 3 visits per day in the last week [3]. Alexa stats here [4], give an average of 1.3 visits per day over the last year; many of which may have come from its mention in the literature. Although their is one link with reference to 2004 their last activity seem to have been in the late 1990's, which even then does not seem to be extensive. Google search gives very few references to them. I am left with the impression that possibly this is at best an insignificant group or possibly even defunct. Frankly I don't know. We also have to consider that WP:UNDUE states that, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia.." . CSDarrow (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
They're books CSDarrow they may not all be on the internet - using Google alone is not the best way to do the highest quality research. However now that 4 books all of academic standard say the same thing your argument about minorities etc is void. So is your Alexa point - it's their website, its their campaign and it's being accurately described - how many hits they get is neither here nor there. I'm not saying that the text in article should be left unchanged, as I said at NPOVN the UK text should be made past tense and relate to the UKMM specifically. The fact is multiple sources say that the United Kingdom Men's Movement campaigned against marital rape and rape laws relating to domestic violence in Britain, the group also says it did itself--Cailil talk 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I find your argument as a whole unconvincing. I am also concerned about this groups name, it could mislead readers into a false impression about Men's Rights activists in the UK in general. The inclusion of you proposed entry requires a lot more thought. I will let others weigh in before further responding. CSDarrow (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Frankly CSDarrow it doesn't matter whether you personally find the group's name misleading or my "argument" unconvincing (which is not an argument it's simply a list of sources that contradict you're your question above WRT WP:UNDUE). The material is there. It's reliably sourced (multiple times). It corroborates the point, and better still it refines the info.

Again, multiple reliable sources say: the Men's rights group called the United Kingdom Men's Movement (UKMM) campaigned against marital rape laws, and rape laws relating to domestic violence, in Britain. The group itself says this. Filibustering wont change it and will be seen as tendentious - the point regarding this material was asked and is now answered. End of story-Cailil talk 12:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, if you have a suggested rewording then we need to see the precise wording of both the proposed new text and the supporting citations. This will speed things up and we can then discuss it. There may concerns over WP:RS and WP:UNDUE here. CSDarrow(talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

First off I've given you two suggestions. 1) Just use the past tense with regard to the UK and cite the sources. Or 2) do this and attribute the activism to the UKMM. It really is that simple. There are no WP:UNDUE or WP:RS issues these sources end that discussion. Persisting with questioning the reliability of clearly reliable sources reflects very poorly on those doing it.

Secondly this doesn't require any one person's approval no-one WP:OWNs this article. When the protection ends the sources should just be cited and everyone needs to move on--Cailil talk 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When you are ready to suggest a change of the text, I am sure before editing you will bring it here for discussion as is common practice. The whole discussion seems to be on track.
In the meantime it would seem the inclusion of the UK in the text as is is in error. A point concurred with by the outside commentators in NPOVN to date. I would ask that you join me in requesting Bbb23 to remove the reference to the UK in that section. It would seem we are misinforming the readers of Wikipedia knowingly at the moment atm. CSDarrow (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion regarding removal. All I'm suggesting is we add these sources to reference the UK piece. Nothing more. And, no CLEARLY the page is correct the UKMM according both to itself and multiple reliable sources DID in fact campaign against marital rape. Please stop going round in circles. This matter is resolved, it's time to move on--Cailil talk 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
When you are prepared to explicitly present your proposed text and sources in a clear, detailed and orderly manner then we can all proceed. This should take very little of your time. A significant claim is being made about a group(s) and care should be taken. I shall make the request to Bbb23 myself. CSDarrow (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The references above (which are perfectly clear in my first post) can and will simply be added to the existing sentence. I will do it myself when the protection ends. But just to be clear with the first suggestion I outline above no new text is required. The sources corroborate Dunphy's point and can be added to support it. If the info has to be attributed (suggestion 2 above) to the UKMM then the words "by the United Kingdom Men's Movement (UKMM)" will simply be added to the existing sentence in a grammatical fashion. This is not complex. Please stop filibustering and throwing up straw man arguments. The matter is resolved - better and more sources have been found. It's time to move on--Cailil talk 23:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
As to "claims" about a group. A) That's how they represent themselves; & B) 4 reliable sources state this. Wikipedia is not in the business of tampering with how sources present information. If other reliable sources disagree we simply present them too in accordance with NPOV. We don't exclude because a few editors dislike it--Cailil talk 23:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Then I will await the precise nature of your edit, sources and rationale till protection ends. I am assuming of course you will bring it to discussion first. Thank you for your time CSDarrow (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel there is a consensus that at present the statement about the UK together with its supporting source does not saisfy WP:UNDUE. Due to the significance of the claim and the fact real people are being talked about, the reference to the UK should be removed. As such I am removing the UK from the statement. Any replacement text should be fully and carefully discussed as this is clearly a non-trivial claim to make. CSDarrow (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Bbb23 was quite clear when they wrote: "If after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice." There is obviously no consensus, let alone a "clear consensus", for your repeated edit. I will notify Bbb23 of your actions and we'll see what will happen after they return. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think consensus is very strongly against striking UK and for including the UKMM. A number of sources were presented which support this text. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no such consensus. CSDarrow (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Bbb23: EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that what is there at the moment is incorrect,(ie un-encyclopedic), considering the enormity of the statement and that real people are affected, then it should be removed. Wikpedia does not knowingly publish incorrect information, there is a clear and unequivocal consensus on that. If people wish to craft a replacement then they should present it here for careful scrutiny, this is very sensitive issue. CSDarrow (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No there isn't, you've just shouted over and over again that the source is not reliable despite it being from a reputable source from a high quality publisher. You have edit warred it out and made weak WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments constantly, refusing to engage in a redraft of the text in question and pushing your own WP:BIAS onto the article. Even when admins suggest that the text could be rewritten you flat out removed it again. Honestly I don't know why you haven't received a ban for edit warring as this article is on the men's rights probation list --5.81.51.85 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

I'm unfortunately walking into this late, but my understanding of CSDarrow's argument is that UKMM is something along the lines of a fringe section of the movement. As such highlighting their opinions is undue weight. If I'm right, can anyone tell me who they are and what their prominence in the UK MRM, or in the overall MRM is or was? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This spilled over to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, where its still open. This post from Cailil details other RS sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't any evidence provided that it was a fringe section of the movement. In fact, the Sociology book that the reference was taken from seems to deal with it as a significant influence within the UK men's rights movement at the time. Flat out removing the source would be dishonest to the movements history. A better approach would be a rewriting of the section to show who it was within the UK, US and Indian men's rights movement that opposed the criminalisation of spousal rape, and how they did this --81.129.126.66 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks IP I don't have access to the book, so whether it was significant at the time is what I was asking about. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really our job Kyohyi. Multiple reliable sources record and highlight this in relation to marital rape laws. So it's our job to record that--Cailil talk 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case this is correct. UK members of the men's rights movement loudly opposed marital rape legislation at that time, this is documented within the book in question. They are not, for my knowledge, still actively doing this, so the best approach would be to frame it appropriately in time --81.129.126.66 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added the 3 sources I found above. There were others mentioned higher up in the thread by other people and could be added if appropriate.

    As regards attribution, over the last few days I've been research on Robert Whiston who's connected to a UK group called Men's Aid & the UK Family Law Reform group who wrote a piece called 'Rape in a Vacuum' criticizing the same laws that the UKMM was. So it does appear factually accurate that more than one group at one time lobbied against these laws in the UK. Now I've only just come across this recently so I can say if its prominent or a RS but it means that more work is needed here before jumping the gun and attributing this too narrowly.

    Also I've reworded the text to say "some Men's rights groups" so that it no longer implies that *all* MRAs hold these views--Cailil talk 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work, I believe this solves the problems CSDarrow and others had with the section --109.148.125.244 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the Men's Rights Moment? Who are Men's Rights Activists?[edit]

This article talks about the MRM yet we get no definition of what it is. Surely if a page is going to talk about a something we should be told what it is, and who these people being talked about are. In the introduction we have descriptions of the apparent place were this unknown entity comes from and apparent reasons for it coming into existence, from the very people it is an apparent backlash to. We also learn the views and areas of interest these, as yet unknown, people have.

There is something structurally very wrong with this page, which is why large chunks of it are very questionable as encyclopedic entries. Framing is everything in molding opinion and creation of a target.

So, who are MRA's and what is the MRM? Without a meaningful definition this page at present is fatally flawed.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true, and also what I talking about was in the section above - without defining which groups comprise the MRM, sweeping statements can be applied to the entire movement instead of the organization intended. The article needs to have a clear definition of what the MRM is, a historical overview, and sections for each individual MRA organization (with links to the main articles if possible). Issues cannot be discussed in relation to the movement as a whole, since these issues aren't universally spoken about throughout the movement - there is no central MRM organisation. Zambelo; talk 00:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. CSDarrow (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


EvergreenFir writes- "Do we have anything that says this is the same as the current movement, or a continuation thereof?"
Editors constructing the main article need to ditch the idea that there is a universal, continuous, singular "men's rights movement." Like the feminist movement, the "men's rights movement" is best conceptualized as an aggregate of all men's rights initiatives/movements (plural). That would help bypass the ridiculous claim in the main article that "The" modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement, as-if there were only one, universal, continuous MRM. There is no "The" men's rights movement, just as there is no "The" feminist movement, technically speaking. There are a multiplicity of movements under these banners.
By definition, groups fighting for social and legal rights, whether the various MRM's are loosely affiliated or not, is the standard of the topic. The whole MRM is best conceptualized in that manner for the article, and this would allow for the more prominent of the hundreds of Men's Rights Movements both preceding and following the feminist men's liberation movement to be included.
I recommend a timeline of some kind be constructed allowing perhaps one line to name each notable men's rights initiative/movement starting from the clearly documented "Men's Rights Movement" of 1898 provided above. I could provide perhaps a few dozen high-quality sourced initiatives dealing with men's legal and other rights starting from 1898 to the present, if editors are willing to tackle this. 58.7.223.26 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Although this list is NOT something that should be duplicated, due to it being a not-reliable-source, it nevertheless provides an example of how a properly cited list of men's rights movements (plural) might be organized. 58.7.223.26 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So we would begin with Anti-Suffragist Ernest Belfort Bax and continue to the present day Anti-Feminist movement? We could incorporate large segments of Anti-Suffragism and Anti-Feminism to do this --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This lede from the WP 'Feminist Movement' article gives a good example of how the men's rights movement can be conceptualized in the article-
[quote] The feminist movement (also known as the women's movement, women's liberation, or feminism) refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence, all of which fall under the label of feminism. The movement's priorities vary among nations and communities and range from opposition to female genital mutilation in one country to opposition to the glass ceiling in another. [end quote]
  • Following that example, the current MRM article could have a similar lede;
[suggested lede] The men's rights movement (also known as the men's movement, and men's liberation movement, or men's human rights movement) refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, alimony, child support, rape, homelessness, prison sentencing, male genital mutilation, and access to education, all of which fall under the label of men's rights. The movement's priorities vary among nations and communities and range from opposition to male genital mutilation in one country to opposition to forced military conscription in another. [end]
  • This can be followed (somewhere on the page) by a list of high quality, reliably sourced men's rights initiatives that have appeared during the last 100 years (one short line per initiative). 58.7.223.26 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean we can ALL agree that this page needs a complete rewrite? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree to a substantial rewrite.58.7.223.26 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
As long as it keeps sources like the ones currently used. We shouldn't throw out high quality sources and replace them with blog posts from within the movement --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I'd like to bring attention towards WP:RELIABLE. It seems to get overlooked when it comes to men's rights editors but generally academic texts are seen as the best quality sources, not blog posts --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The page needs work but it also needs a plan based on wikipedia policy. Come up with that plan first then show a concrete proposal for the rewrite (maybe a public draft in the user-space). But there is certainly no consensus to dump everything and return to the "old version".

    PLease see WP:GA? for advice regarding improving article quality--Cailil talk 18:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already suggested a new lede above. Lets see if those who oversee this locked article do anything with that before further efforts are made or wasted. So far it's crickets.
I also gave info about a bona fide men's rights movement from 1898, and cited it, that has not been included in the article (more crickets). Lastly, at least for the moment, I suggest that the "forerunners" section be retitled to "The Early Men's Rights movement" - because these were not merely forerunners to men's rights movements - they were it, as evidenced by the 1898 title "men's rights movement." To repeat myself from above, the MRM is an aggregate of movements and initiatives just like feminism is, and is made up or movements (eg. marriage law reform; alimony reform) and individuals (eg. Ernest B. Bax) fighting for men's rights - the same as the feminist movement is made up of movements (eg. suffrage; abortion) or individual advocates (eg. Mary Wollstonscraft). 58.7.223.26 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So you would like it if we incorporated content about the Anti-Suffragists, such as Bax, at the start of the article? --109.148.125.244 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest drafting something that summarises the sources, preferably not by copying and pasting content from other articles and rewriting them a little like above, then posting it here as a draft --109.148.125.244 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is we need RS. The suggested lede does not conform with any sources and is full of POV language. I would support adding anti-suffrage movements in the forerunners section if a reliable secondary source can tie them to a group that considers themselves "men's rights" groups, as opposed to just "anti-suffrage" (though no doubt their interests obviously overlap). PearlSt82 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You would support adding anti-suffrage? What about throwing in anti-feminist, anti-women and anti-gay too?

Baxs' men's rights advocacy was vastly more extensive than his anti-suffragist/feminist writing, dealing more with inequities in the legal code and its application to men (he was a lawyer and trained philosopher). So if we wish to sound a tad less biased lets refer to him as a men's rights advocate, shall we? He certainly did more MR activism than anti-suffrage writing.

I'm utterly wasting my time here. I won't be returning. 58.7.223.26 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is we need reliable sources. The point is I don't think any reliable sources tie Bax (or anti-suffrage movements) to the MRM. If that tie is made by a secondary source, it should go in the article. If not, it shouldn't. Does that make sense? PearlSt82 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should be put up for deletion. If not for the bias in the article, then for the key lack of citations. This page, much like the entire idea of this "movement" is misguided and out of touch. VisaBlack (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Theres 150+ sources for this article - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of criticism in the summary[edit]

The mentioning that "certain scholars" think MRA are misogynists in the summary is unnecessary and morally loads the article. Since not all MRA and MR movements are misogynistic, and due to the controversial nature of the accusations of mysogyny, I believe it would be better to create a section in the article for contemporary criticisms of the movement, which can include accusations of mysogyny and the evidence to support them. 70.74.236.72 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That section is already there, "Reactions/criticism", and the lede is supposed to summarize the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don't other gender studies wiki entries introduce the topic with the harshest criticisms, and no in text substantiation? The introduction to feminism does not mention that some believe feminism to be misandrist. I still feel that the wording in the introduction morally loads the article, rather than describes it. With this topic being so controversial, and concerns about bias in this specific article (such as the many flags the article has been granted), we should Keep harsh and vitriol critic in the criticism section and keep the introduction without any rash judgements. Dropping the "some people think", "certain scholars", ect in there does not change that the statement morally loads the article and the viewer, or that the accusations are not necessarily valid. This same tactic is used all the time in media to inject bias. First explain the topic, then explain the critic, then let the reader judge what this all means. Since there are many forms of mens rights (as their is feminism) it seems a bit harsh to judge the entire movement as misogynist in the introduction, even if it is thought to be by "some scholars" 70.74.236.72 (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles record what is verifiable by including information from reliable sources. What other articles include or not is irrelevant. Pushing criticism into a ring-fenced section is against the rules (specifically WP:NPOV) articles should be neutral (not positive or negative) in form/structure. If reliable sources say a topic is controversial then the WP article says it's controversial in this case where there is widespread description of this subject as misogynistic in academic sources (and high quality news sources) over the course of years, then we record that. This question has been asked and answered numerous times already (see the archives), unless there is a new policy reason for removal to discuss then PearlSt82 has answered your question already--Cailil talk 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Check out radical feminism. It has criticism in the lead as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
by including harsh criticism in the introduction without ballancing that with any praise the article morally loads the reader from the start, and the bias in the article is made apparent. So long as there is a refusal by the editors to produce a neutral article than this article will remain neutrality disputed. For clarity, I never said the criticism should not be included in the article... Just not in the summary. If this article was about "radical men's rights" exclusively, of course it would be comparable to the radical feminist article, but its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.5.98 (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
And this has been talked to death already multiple times. Wikiepdia does not do *balancing*. That is a common and wild misunderstanding of the Neutral Point Of View policy. Wikipedia records without inserting itself. That means not giving equal validity to fringe ideas. If a subject is predominantly considered to be, or described as something then that is recorded as appropriate.
"Morally loading" something is not a reason to do anything (see WP:OUTRAGE). For example, many homeopaths don't like homeopathy being called a pseudoscience, but that's how its described by the mainstream and wikipedia reflects how things are described by the mainstream. Unless you have a policy reason to change something this question has been answered--Cailil talk 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is ever wirtten by any human being or group there of without "insterting themselves". When talking about a topic such as this it is easy to find sources either for or against it. If you pick a biased source you can easily inject bias into a topic. I think this article has a clear bias, and the many flaggings of the article obviously reflect that. By segregating the most controversial of criticisms from the summary this article would be made less controversial. The fact this keeps coming up, may be because it is a valid point that is being ignored... as such this page will forever be biased, and flagged as such.
The difference between mens rights and homeopathy is that homeotpathy can be scientifically proven to be non scientific. Mens rights on the other hand is not a unified movement, and can not be definitively called mysogynistic, and have that hold true. This despite the claims by many biased individuals. This is not much different than using the "some say" fallacy to support a point. Opinion is not fact, and should not be presented as such.
And since we are on the topic of neutrality, it should be pointed out that the references to the claim that mens rights are mysogynstic often do not even make that claim. For instance the glenn sacks article talks about a fringe group of mens rights members who are mysogynstic, and does not describe the movement as mysogynstic as a whole. The southern poverty reference refers to mysogynsts in the movement, and again does not clasify the entire movement as mysogystic. The reactions and resistance to feminism book mentions that many mens advocacy websites supported feminism, or were indifferent to women. Women men and gender is, it seems the only one that is blatently calling mens rights movements mysogynstic.
I think it would be a fair compromise to edit the line to state that "Beliefs and activities of fringe elements within the mens rights movement have been described as mysogynstic", rather than, as it now reads "The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by certain scholars, the Southern Poverty Law Center and commentators, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.[5][6][7][8][9][10]" which needless to say is a horrible run on sentence, and shows a clear bias. Also this bloated sentence is quite different since when I started this talk section, when it only said "some scholars have described it as mysogynstic"--70.74.236.72 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read the above posts - this has been answered already. Wikipedia records what is verifiable not necessarily what is true. If WP was being written in C19th the theory of relativity would be controversial and aether theories would be considered the mainstream. Wikipedia simply reflects the dominant world view at the time of writing not matter how right or wrong it is and we make no judgements to *correct* or *balance* it. It is against Wikipedia's rules to "segregate" the criticism. The fact that this comes up in many many articles is because people misunderstand NPOV (that's why we have a section called "common misunderstandings of NPOV"). Furthermore the piece you refer to explicitly says that "sectors" *not all* of the men's rights movement have been labelled as misogynistic--Cailil talk 13:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking into your points about the sources. certainly the Glenn Sacks one should be removed--Cailil talk 13:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
After a quick look the only ones that need to be removed is the Glenn Sacks reference. The Ruzankina citation looks like it's incorrectly placed - it has nothing to do with misogyny but does deal with other issues highlighted in the sentence (will have to get in touch with whoever added it). The others all do deal with the MRM and allegation sof misogyny in sectors of it--Cailil talk 13:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I added the Ruzankina source - it might fit better after "The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by certain scholars", as opposed to the end of the sentece, as it discusses how researchers view the MRM, which was my rationale for adding. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Forerunners -> Early men's rights movements[edit]

Early men's rights movements, while legitimately viewed as forerunners, are not forerunners alone but were also considered men's rights movements (plural) in their own right. I have changed the subheading from 'forerunners' to 'Early men's rights movements' to reflect this fact. 58.7.248.55 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, see above. Also, forgive me for my skepticism, but finding contemporary sources that actually establish these obscure historical events as being relevant would go a long way towards establishing WP:DUE weight. All of the sources you used were prominent in MRM blogs and websites, but do not seem to be widely known or accessible anywhere else. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and remember that a source derived from a blog or other non-reliable source should be treated with skepticism. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, please don't make wild assumptions about where I got the sources. Rather, ask. I got them from the British Newspaper Archives, not from blogs etc. and they are high quality, primary sources. So let's start this conversation again, shall we? Rosebudflower (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems far fetched, and the sources are unverifiable. So discuss here before inserting. I agree that it is also WP:UNDUE. Dave Dial (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Far fetched? Try good faith. The sources are completely verifiable - they are housed in the British Newspaper Archive. Rosebudflower (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
A Men's Rights Movement' - Page.2, Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 06 May 1898
An ungallant society: The men’s rights movement', page.6 London Daily News - Friday 06 May 1898
A League for Men's Rights', Blackburn Standard - Saturday 14 May 1898 Rosebudflower (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Look at it from our point of view: an IP address (presumably you) with exactly three edits adds some contentious material that is widely circulated on blogs, and has already been discussed here before. Please don't act indignant if I try to remind you to double-check your sources. Regardless, what about all the other issues I raised with your edits? Do you have any WP:SECONDARY sources to establish WP:DUE weight? I also managed to find them in the British Newspaper Archives. They're all in the ~2000 word range, and the Yorkshire Post one[5] is in the gossip section. This is hardly weighty stuff, which is why more recent and/or more substantial coverage would be necessary before including this. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not interested in your hypothesis about me getting the material from a blogspot, nor your bad faith assumptions about it being "far fetched", because I have given the citations and links to the Newspaper archive. Lets return to the citations above that you seem intent on departing from. Now, would you like me to pay for your subscription to the archive so you can check the facts, or are you able to access them yourself? I'm more than happy to pay for it so you can verify how much of what I've said is far fetched. Rosebudflower (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, they are not all "in the 2000 word range articles" - only one of them is; London Daily News. The latter is THE primary source of everything that I wrote in the main entry re the 1898 MRM, with the others being secondary verification sources. Moreover, The London Daily Times and is adequate on its own without a secondary source, though I will certainly provide a secondary source if I come across one. Rosebudflower (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is this - it has been reverted (vandalized) again! So much for providing sources. The gossip about Wikipedia failing is absolutely spot on. Rosebudflower (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, these sources are fairly minor, and only one of them appears to exceed 2,000 words (obviously their OCR leaves much to be desired, but as a ballpark it's probably close enough)[6][7] The section you added was quite large, and in order for such a large amount of material to be added, it should be supported by some sort of historical context indicating that it was significant at the time, or in some way influential. What you added did not do that. The added content should also be neutrally written. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated, I think this merits inclusion in the article, but stating only that the organization existed in May of 1898. We have only primary sources documenting its existence during this time (likely all part of the same PR campaign given they are from the same week), and no secondary sources detailing its significance or relation to the movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, a single sentence or two, maybe. Without better sources, it seems hard to imagine anything more than that. It should also be worded so it doesn't imply that there's any continuity between the 1898 group and the modern movement. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following article may provide some useful suggestions (at the very top of the page) for how to improve this article; Men’s Rights Movement. 58.7.242.137 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That site is WP:SPS, and cannot be used. As far as I can tell, most of the links on that site are also SPS, mainly Blogspot or Wordpress sites. A handful of usable sources are also listed, but most (all?) of them are already in the article. Please review WP:RS for further info. Do you have an actual suggestion for the article? Grayfell (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think there are already numerous valid suggestions for the article on this talk page that you've refused to act on, I see no need to add more to the list until the earlier ones are dealt with. 58.7.242.137 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014[edit]

Guerillero or another admin, can you please add {{pp-dispute|expiry=October 8, 2014}} to the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I should have remembered that this is under the 1RR last night. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)