Talk:Men's rights movement

Mention of Academic opinion

I am going to suggest that the entire line be removed and transferred here to the talkpage along with the several sources for the time being. All the sources must be gone through painstakingly to find where this information is coming from and that is a lot of reading. Right now I believe the statement to be synthesis and OR placed there with mutliple academic sources as the only basis for the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. I'm sorry, but I am moved to strong language. This is hogwash. The fact that there are "mutliple academic sources" is the exact reason why the information needs to stay. Please see WP:V, WP:IRS. I can't imagine what better sources you are thinking of of, but academic sources are as good as they get. --Slp1 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe a claim can be made without a source to back it up. This sounds like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, I'm afraid. The claim is that academics critique the men's rights movement for their use of the research. This is supported by numerous citations. The claim is made and the sourced back it up. There is no rabbit and no hat. This is how we write this encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. (and if there really is a reference then please show it) We only make claims that are backed up by a reliable source that actually makes such a claim unless it is unquestionable like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Just because many academics have an opinion of this kinda obscure subject does not mean it is unquestionable. We still require a source that states this as a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see above. You have a misunderstanding of how we summarize information per NPOV Slp1 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet, even as an admin you can't seem to actually show the policy that allows the sythesis of information in this manner. It is easy to make such accusations Slp. Watch: You don't have an understanding of how refencing works on Wikipedia. See how easy that was. Now....why don't you show the exact policies and guidelines that support your opinion. So again, I am suggesting that we move the disputed information to the talkpage to discuss until the references are verified and can be shown one way or the other. Anyway....good night. No action will be taken until a consensus is reached. If no consensus is determined to move the information it shall remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Slp on this issue 100%. I view this statement as encyclopedic summation, and don't see how it could be covered by WP:NOR. I would suggest that WP:NOR/N may be a good place to recruit additional opinions if you really do believe this is somehow an original research issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin for your added input, however as Wikipedia:No original research states: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

However, each critical academic source advances the same position. We can certainly say multiple scholars agree or disagree with a position, as an encyclopedic summary of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As Binkster says, each critical academic source advances the same position. The sentence contains absolutely no "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. The sources are simply being placed in a group and a claim being made about all of them not advanced by the sources themselves - that academics hold this opinion of actavists. That is the synthesis.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point out where exactly the claim is made the 'academics hold this opinion of actavists{sic}'? Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Academics criticize the research cited by activists, and while acknowledging that men are victims of domestic violence, dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical". The bolded part is the synthesis not supported by the sources if all that is happening is that a group of academic sources are gathered and this claim is made without an actual reference stating this as a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: I actually misread your last post a little bit, which was why my last post sounded weird. I was about to self revert when you posted.

However, given that that statement is supported by five citations where academics are criticizing the research cited by activists, where is the inappropriate synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources? The sources are all written by academics, and are all criticizing the research cited by activists. So, even though I did misread your last post, I still don't understand where you're seeing synthesis. We could name each academic individually, but that would be unnecessarily lengthy - it's much better to sum up the massive collection of academics who specifically criticize the research the activists cite (and criticize the activists for citing the research) as "Academics criticize the research cited by activists," instead of naming each one. It's summation, not synthesis. Are you thinking the label 'academics' itself is somehow synthetic? They're all objectively academics, and that wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:SYNTH anyway.

Perhaps someone at WP:NOR/N could better appreciate whatever argument you're trying to make and could bring some fresh eyes to this discussion? Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is there regardless, but I am not about to chase this to a noticeboard. I can accept the consensus of the editors even if I completely disagree. This is a collaboration. I really can't believe that editors don't understand this very basic policy, but we may just ignore it if it keeps the peace. Although if other editors begin to move towards this please count me as supporting a re-write that does not contain this language. I have the page watch listed. If this becomes a dispute that others weigh in on perhaps an RFC or another option would be better for now, but if you wish to make mention of this at WP:NOR/N I won't object. I'll watchlist that one as well (that is one I have not listed and should anyway).--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is, that could just read:

"Research cited by activists has been criticised, and at the same time acknowledged that men are victims of domestic violence. However, claims that such violence is gender symmetrical has been disputed".

To me the other version is buffery, synthesis and original research. But it stands for the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to paraphrase what I believe the arguments are here, so if I'm mis-representing someone's argument please point out where. For the people who believe that those sections is fine, the argument is,

1. These critics criticize the mens rights movement.

2. These critics are Academics

3. There are no published academic sources that disagree with critics

4. Therefore "Academics" criticize the mens rights movement.

In this case, we are using absence of evidence as a proof that since nobody speaks out, there must be academic consensus. However, The guidelines pointed out in WP:RS/AC state that in order to say that there is academic consensus we need a reliable source that explicitly says so. In the exception case used by Slp1 of Aids denialism I find two cases where academic consensus is mentioned, in the first case, two sources are cited, one is from The national institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the other is Centers for Disease Control. In this case we have two organizations which are in charge of overseeing their respective communities. As such any statement from them can be taken as the consensus of their communities. The second case is an article in which discusses how denialists go against consensus, as such is a source on the consensus. Thus the only exception from the guidelines in Aids denialism relies on statements from organizations which represent their respective communities. However, the sources supplied in this case, are of individual academics, and unless specifically sourced cannot speak for their academic communities as a whole. Note: If you have a disagreement with these presentations, I would appreciate if you would point out where. Kyohyi (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are misquoting IRS. The statement there is that "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.". There is no statement here that "all or most scholars" say anything. In fact your preferred formulation "some academics..." would also require just such a reliable source to source it; this is especially so from an accuracy perspective as no academic source with an alternate view has ever been provided, despite multiple requests.

If you don't like the Aids denialism example - and I agree may not be an exact parallel, as in that case an academic consensus is claimed, and I suppose it could be argued that the sources represent a larger community than is suggested by "this committee" which is, for example, cited as the authority in one- try the more emotive Holocaust denial, in which the more directly parallel sentence "Scholars consider this to be misleading, since the methods of Holocaust denial differ from those of legitimate historical revision" is cited to 4 individual scholars.[1]. Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is, basically, that errors and policy violations exist in other articles, so therefore we should allow them here? Fail. Belchfire-TALK 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Way to go with the strawman! I thought after all the explanations a practical example might help, but I guess not. However, assuming you are serious, I look forward to seeing how you get on at the Holocaust denial talkpage asking for the "policy violation" to be corrected.Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like using other articles in this manner as examples, as I believe Kyohyi to be correct. I also agree very much with Belchfire. Just because you see another article use these methods does not make them correct.

At this time, it looks as if there is movement in this discussion. Three editors feel the language is not to policy and two believe that it is. I suggest an RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your count is off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your count is off. External opinions are welcome, but since your argument is about NOR, I'd also suggest WP:NORN, as Kevin did above, as the best spot to get other opinions.Slp1 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a straw man; it's a precise summary of your argument. And as if to double-down on it, you continue to rely on other articles to justify what goes into this one. That doesn't cut it. Please confine discussion to this article, or else simply concede the point gracefully. Belchfire-TALK 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not so much. Please check

• I just made a minor wording change to "Academics have criticized" from "Academics criticize." Hopefully, this will address concerns that the statement as it stood might have been interpreted as saying "academic consensus rejects the activists claim" (which would be OR and possibly incorrect.) Also, as a reminder to all participants in this discussion, this article is under community probation, the terms of which can be viewed via the link at the top of this page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, Kevin. Your edit mitigates the problem to some degree, but fails short of resolving it, IMO. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Belchfire and also feel the change in the middle of the discussion was innapropriate for an article under probation. That was not a very good move here in my opinion. I would request that you reverse yourself please and continue to discuss this before attempting to make further changes to prose while a dispute is ongoing on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel a good faith attempt to improve the wording of a phrase to resolve raised concerns is a violation of the terms of this article's probation, I am both a bit confused and strongly disagree with you. I am not going to be reversing my change, since I do think it improves the sentence, and even Belchfire thinks that it mitigates to an extent the problems he sees in the sentence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not working in a colaborative effort on an article under probation and are pushing things a bit. What you call a good faith attempt to alter the prose in question, I see as taking matters into your own hands knowing we cannot revert you. Your behavior here seems to be to do as you please when there is an ongoing discussion. I don't doubt your good faith, but do doubt that you are working with others to do much more than keep the synthesis. I would rather that was reverted and feel you did not have a consensus to do it. Even Blech stated it did not resolve the issue and it doesn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you genuinely feel my edit made the article worse rather than better, you are perfectly capable of reverting me. I'm certainly not operating under the assumption that no one can revert me. There's nothing in the terms of article probation that says that it's unacceptable to revert another editor. I would ask you to only revert my edit if you genuinely feel it made the problem worse, rather than better, but that's a judgement call for you. If you really honestly feel that the problem that you see (that I still do not understand) was made worse by my edit, then revert me.

There's no need to establish consensus before making an edit, even when there's an on-going discussion about an issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As the probation states: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Knowing that even a single edit could be seen as edit warring and given that there is currently a discussion and several reverts to the prose in question.....you could well be seen as edit warring. If you don't wish to work together with the involved editors you may be in danger of sanctions. I stop short of making any claims of such but do feel you are not working in a collaborative effort. Could you at least consider not making further changes while the discussion is underway. This is a reasonable request I believe.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel my behavior constitutes a violation of the terms of the probation, I would actively encourage you to ask an uninvolved administrator (recruited through WP:ANI or whatever other forum you'd like) to review my behavior. As I said above: if you genuinely feel my edit made the problem worse, rather than better, please feel absolutely free to revert my edit. Given that I am actively engaged on this talk page in trying to figure out a way to address your concerns, I am not sure why you feel I am not here to work collaboratively. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you seem to be working on your own and ignoring the discussion as well as the concerns of others. You seem to feel inclined to edit instead of gaining the consensus of editors to make changes here. I have made my suggestions and need not go to an admin. Please do not alter the prose again untill we have all decided what is the proper way to move forward. You edit was unconstructive.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, there's no need to establish consensus before making an edit, even when there's an on-going discussion about an issue. You're absolutely right that I am generally inclined to make bold edits in attempts to address concerns that people have brought up without first establishing consensus that my wording is the best possible wording, especially when I honestly believe that my wording will be more agreeable to all parties than the previous wording was. That isn't disruptive - it's generally considered best practice. I made my edit because I believed you would find the wording more to your taste than the prior version; if I was wrong, then please, revert me. I say that in perfect seriousness. I am actively engaging in this discussion in multiple places, and actively trying to understand and address the concerns that people are bringing up. Please either stop focusing on the fact that I made an edit, or simply revert my edit. Please either stop making allegations about my behavior and focus your comments on trying to figure out how to improve the content of this page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to review my behavior. (I would be fine with you doing either, but would like to point out that continuing to focus on my behavior instead of the content of the article is both unproductive and potentially a probation violation.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Kevin's edit was an attempt at a compromise, which is always to be welcomed. Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It was just working around the rest of us and continueing a dispute. I am not new and understand the tactics employed in order to gain movement in the direction of a point of view shared by a handful of editors, but again, it really was not appropriate to edit while we ere discussing the contnet. As a dispute requires consensus and no consensus exists yet....the prose should be returned to the state before his change. No consensus, no change. That is policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was extending an olive branch towards Kevin in the interest of creating a collegial atmosphere. I was not endorsing his edit. Belchfire-TALK 00:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you rather it be phrased "Academics, including (long list of academics who are cited at the end of the sentence), have criticized the activist's claims"? I guess we could theoretically do that, but it would be horribly ungainly, and run counter to the encyclopedic summary style Wikipedia normally uses. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Kevin's edit is an improvement Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Still feel this is best:

"Research cited by activists has been criticised, and at the same time acknowledged that men are victims of domestic violence. However, claims that such violence is gender symmetrical has been disputed".

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested phrasing fails to follow standard Wikipedia guidelines regarding attribution of criticism, and also fails to adequately represent the frequency and degree of criticism. Both of these present WP:NPOV problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for phrasing that doesn't imply it's a widely-held view. Preceding it with the word "some" is the most obvious and most efficient way to do that, but it's been ruled out. Amad's fix is a bit cumbersome, but it would get the job done. Belchfire-TALK 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra indentations so that it's extra-clear I'm replying to you. I don't actually have a huge problem with prefacing it with the word "some." I have some issues with it (that could hopefully be resolved once better sources are brought in to play,) but it's certainly a better solution than Amad's suggested one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, Belchfire, that you want to emphasize that WP doesn't imply that it isn't a widely held view. Do you actually have any evidence from reliable sources that this isn't the case? That's where this discussion has to start. Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit cumbersome, but purposely made in this manner, as to not change the information or facts themselves but eliminate the OR and synthesis. We can play around with the prose here and discuss ways to make it flow better.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually your formulation begs the tags "who?".... and the answer is "academics". --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which only begs for a question of "what academics".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, all the sources that have been found so far. Are there any academics that disagree with this? The ball is in your court to prove otherwise. This question and discussion is only relevant if you have any reliable sources that there is some sort of disagreement. Slp1 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And not one of them supports the claim. Clear synthesis of combining opinions of a handfull of acadmeics to make the statement without anyone of these sources actually saying this. Clearly some POV goin on here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, all the references to date do support the claim, and per Wikipedia:Scientific consensus "The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion." That's exactly what we have here. It's very, very easy to come disprove that there is no consensus. Just come up with some reliable academic sources that disagrees with this view.

Contrary to your claim, the clear POV issue comes from people who wish to marginalize the scholarly view without providing one iota of evidence that there is any disagreement in the scholarly community. It's so easy per NPOV... provide some sources to support what you want to include, and this conversation can be over. I can't believe the time that gets spent in discussion, and not a single source gets provided. Slp1 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see at all how any sources support the claim as written and it should also be noted that Wikipedia:Scientific consensus is simply an essay is is not policy or guideline but merely the suggestion of a number of editors and its application here seems a tad erroneous.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved stepping in to make a minor comment about sourcing, sources have to be "independent" of the subject. If one of the concerns here are that many of the scholarly sources are from feminist scholars, folks who stand to lose if the subject gains, then they are not independent of the subject.--v/r - TP 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This interpretation of policy strikes me as peculiar, and is as far as I am aware, a completely novel interpretation. If we applied this standard elsewhere, we would be unable to use any academic sources in our article on intelligent design, since evolutionary scientists would stand to lose out on a lot if intelligent design was accepted by the mainstream community. The idea that we would disregard scholarly sources in this fashion is not supported by policy or common sense. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a "novel interpretation"; that's a fair reading of the plain language in the policy. WP:RS The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. If we can determine that a source has a vested interest in the subject matter, that source is questionable, or be attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Academic sources are not immune from this concern.

And, I remind:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

There is no serious question that the current wording goes against WP:RS. Belchfire-TALK 21:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

By novel interpretation, I meant one that has not previously been advanced anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's certainly not the standard applied to other areas where similar concerns occur, and is out of line with the letter and spirit of every content policy that we have. Also, please reread what I have actually said throughout this thread. I think you may be conflating the opinions I hold with those that Slp and other editors hold, since I have not suggested we should present the issue as an academic consensus and don't view the current wording as doing so. Anyway, I'm going to take a break from participating in this discussion thread until someone makes a productive suggestion or until more editors who have not previously participated in MRM-related disputes express opinions, because I think this discussion has reached the point of unproductivity. If you would like to make forward progress on this issue, I would suggest inviting outside input via a noticeboard or running a neutrally-worded RfC. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Break

Slp1, that is a highly selective and very self-serving reading of the policy. You are conveniently omitting the very next sentence, which reads: The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. So far, such a source does not appear to exist. In this case, you are defending the findings of one group of scientists over those of another group... evidently, because they hold the opinion that you prefer. And this is the basic problem with saying that the "critics" hold a consensus view: they don't, and they are referred to as "critics" for that precise reason. Other scientist hold opposing views, and the "critics" may or may not be in the minority, but they certainly don't speak for the scientific community as a whole, and sourced content already in the article says as much. Belchfire-TALK 05:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let me see if I understand the dispute. A number of academics criticize the MRM but there is little to no academic literature defending the MRM. And the question is, should that be interpreted as meaning academia as a whole condemns the MRM? I don't think so; that's a separate claim and requires sourcing. I would challenge any such interpretation. I suspect the disparity exists because, to get your views published in these journals, you have to blame and vilify men; I don't believe it has anything at all to do with the actual merits of your work. The views of a small and opinionated group of scholars occupying the very lowest rung of what could be considered academic literature cannot be taken as representative of academia as a whole.Reyk _YO! 07:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Reyk - how do you feel about the current wording? I'm not sure that we should be presenting this as an academic consensus (although I'm not sure we shouldn't, I just haven't thought about it enough,) and tried to modify the wording a bit so as to make it more clear that it's not necessarily an academic consensus. But we have a situation in which we're citing half a dozen academics who are explicitly criticizing the claims of the activists, and plenty more notable academics have done so also. We could individually name each academic who has criticized the claims, but that would result in a laundry list a mile long. To me, saying "Academics have criticized these claims" is literally just a way of avoiding listing out the names of twenty or thirty academics who have explicitly criticized these claims - an encyclopedic summation. Can you come up with a wording that would avoid the concerns of Belch and Amad that would also avoid an awkward sounding laundry list of names? Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple Compromise of Phrasing?

I think, from what I gather, the primary criticism of the original wording is that in saying that "Academics critique the claims" implies a consensus. The concern about this is that the language could be viewed as simply promoting the PoV that the MRMs concerns are illegitimate, rather than identifying academic criticisms of those concerns.Ironlion45 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tentatively altered the wording very slightly, in an attempt to make it more neutral and reflective of the fact that there are several (yet separate) sources of critique; Hopefully that very slight modification represents a satisfactory compromise between the two conflicting attitudes about that line here. Ironlion45 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi guys, I am stepping in to assist KillerChihuahua with patrolling this article. This is just a heads up that anymore warring over the tense of the criticism will result in a page protection to facilitate the above discussion. Please come to a consensus on the matter before editing that part anymore. It doesn't hurt the article any to leave it alone for a day or so while it is discussed.--v/r - TP 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, your help is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a Women's rights article, but no equivalent Men's Rights article?

There is a Women's rights article as well as a separate women's rights movement (Feminist movement) article. This is appropriate in that there is a distinction between a discussion of rights from a description of a political movement.

As I recall, there was once a Men's Rights article. It was lost when it was merged with this page, the Men's Rights Movement.

If the distinction between these two topics, rights vs. political movement, is relevant to one gender, why would it not also be relevant to the other? Memills (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There was already an RfC, archived here.[2] Please do not reopen that discussion after it has been closed. Also please read WP:FORUM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. Also, that discussion was primarily about renaming the article, rather than proposing two different articles. It did not specifically address this issue: Why are two articles -- a rights page and a political movement page -- justified for women, but not for men? The same reasoning that justifies two separate pages for women would equally apply to men. These are two distinct topics. The topic of "rights" can be approached from multiple perspectives: legal, historical, psychological, sociological, etc. -- as distinct from a political movement. Here "rights" and "movement" are conflated and awkwardly forced-fit into this one article, which leads to confusion and editing disputes. Two separate articles would rectify that, and make consistent the WP treatment of both men's and women's issues. Memills (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There were very prolonged discussions that were closed in August. Trying to restart them only four months later is not helpful. You might also want to read WP:SOAPBOX. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the same issue. Old issue: renaming an article. New issue: the need for two separate articles to bring the WP treatment of men's issues in line with the WP treatment of women's issues. Memills (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the page to discuss that. You could always ask KillerChihuahua. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic was also discussed, even more recently, in September 2012 [3]. To summarize: it is up to you or anybody else who wants to create a Men's Rights page to produce the reliable secondary sources that show that Men's Rights (as I believe you would like to see them defined, but see the next paragraph too) is a topic that exists independently of the men's rights movements and their claims. There can be no discussion until that happens. As has already been pointed out WP does not create articles simply to create internal consistency or fairness. We need sources.

Note also that given this is a global encyclopedia, any page named "Men's Rights" will have to reflect the global perspective that in many countries and cultures men actually have many more rights than women, including rights over women. There are multiple scholarly sources for this, obviously, and I listed a bunch in the discussion linked to above.Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

These are imaginary constraints with no basis in policy. The only thing I see above that can be validated is the point about internal consistency. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that notability and verifiability are imaginary constraints with no basis in policy, or did I misunderstand you? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that is what Belchfire was suggesting. Rather, there are notable, reliable and verifiable sources from a variety of disciplines (legal, medical/health, psychological, sociological, anthropological) that address issues related to men's rights apart from any political movement per se (e.g., the fairness of a male-only draft, the relatively meager attention given to the high rate of male rape in prisons, faster male senescence, etc.). The Women's rights article similarly focuses on concepts and issues of rights not necessarily related to particular political movements.

As I have mentioned previously, the book by Benatar The Second Sexism deals with many men's rights issues, apart from any particular political movement. It might be a good starting point for developing topics and sources for such an article.

Additional thought: to avoid overly narrow interpretation of the term "men's rights" (that many not include unfair application of rights, cultural expectations and stereotypes, etc.) perhaps a new page might be more appropriately titled "Men's Rights and Issues." Memills (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, definitely not. Please read WP:POVFORK. You cannot try and perform an end-run to write the kind of article that is being prevented here by editors who are more familiar with Wikipedia practices. The kind of article that could list any damn issue that was slightly related to men's rights, without having a reference to the men's rights movement, would be deleted very quickly. You have to work within the strictures of Wikipedia's rules to discuss the issues that are important to the men's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think a "Men's Rights and Issues" would come too close to this article and we'd end up with some WP:REDUNDANTFORK, though a more narrowly defined article to "Men's Rights" or "Men's rights and responsibilities" which deals with historical, and cultural views of men might solve any Fork issues. Kyohyi (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Same args would apply equally to the Women's rights and the Feminism articles. Yet, both articles peacefully coexist. Memills (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they peacefully co-exist because there are multiple reliable sources on the subject of women's rights, and multiple other (separate and different) sources about feminism. The sources treat this as two (albeit overlapping) topics and thus so do we. Find reliable secondary sources that speak about "men's rights" separately from the "men's rights movement" and you are on your way. But despite multiple requests and prompts nobody has ever been able to produce any. Opinions are two a penny. Find the sources. --Slp1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the a good way to describe the difference is that wikipedia generally reflects what is currently important to people as well as what has historically been important. Because of this some subjects are covered in more detail than others, and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to cover areas that humanity has not deemed important. Kyohyi (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

I'm already working on Men's Issues - pretty big topic, though. Carptrash (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Men's Issues is probably a better article title, in that the term is more broad and so editors will be less likely to get bogged down in debates about what is a "right" vs. what is an "issue." Memills (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bogged down" seems like code for "the process whereby crappy additions are seriously questioned and/or reverted by experienced encyclopedia contributors". I cannot think how an article about "men's issues" could be kept from violating WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily hostile. Let's wait and see how it turns out. There's no need to rush to pre-judge this proposed article. Reyk _YO! 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"I cannot think how an article about "men's issues" could be kept from violating WP:NOR."

I'm sure most Wikipedians were saying the same thing about the new "Women's Issues" article back in the 1950s. Memills (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm... no. They would have multiple sources on the actual topic of "women's rights" no less: Olympe de Gouges's Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791),Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1891); John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women(1869); Tennessee Celeste Claflin's Constitutional equality: a right of woman (1871); Hecker's A short history of women's rights from the days of Augustus to the present time (1914); The United Nation's Political rights of women: 56 years of progress (1946) and Advances in the recognition, exercise and observation of women's rights (1955); Songalia's Women's rights (1958) and I could go on and on of course. Note how clear it is that even by the 1950s, Women's rights were not being discussed only by feminists or in discussions about the views of women's rights/suffrage movement. That's simply not the case with "men's rights" at present. Maybe the UN will one day issue a report on "Advances in the recognition, exercise and observation of men's rights", but that time has not yet come. As multiple editors have pointed out, these continual attempts to force an equality between subjects that are not equal -based on what is important to Wikipedia, sources- is totally inappropriate, and getting into I don't hear that territory.

While not wanted to prejudge the issue I share Binksternet's concerns that any article called "Men's issues" is liable to be a mass of OR and synthesis. I mean, there are all sort of things that could be described men's issues by somebody. Whether to shave or wear a beard. Fatherhood. Gay relationships. Why fewer jean designs are available for men. Prostrate cancer. Paternity leave. Macho culture. Seduction community methods and concepts. Impotence. etc etc. I'd also suggest that before going very far with this that Carptrash do a variation of what Kevin Gorman in August suggested for those who wanted to write an article on men's rights [4]: "find post at least six reliable sources that deal with the concept of "men's issues". Then, write and post a coherent statement of the scope you envision for this article, and, since we don't conduct original research, justify that scope with reliable sources that use similar scopes." It would be a shame to do a lot of work for nothing, and I'll need some help from sources to see that this is coherent topic that needs a WP article.--Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some animals are apparently more equal than others.

See the books listed in the "Further Reading" section of this article for an introduction to men's issues, for starters. Want more? A Google search of "men's issues" turns up close to one million results. A Google Scholar search for "men's rights" returns more than 3,500 academic articles; "men's issues" returns more than 1,800. Enter these search terms in Google Books for many book-length treatments...

Lots of reliable sources. And more than enough bedtime reading to cure any insomniac. Memills (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Counts from Google searches aren't going to cut it, Memills, as you should know by now since I and others discussed it with you on your talkpage.[5] Frankly it just makes your argument look ridiculous when one can quickly see from a quick survey of the first 10 hits on the google scholar search that....

• 6 are about men's rights movement and their activities [6][7][8][9][10][11]
• 3 are about "men's rights" to engage in domestic violence [12], to purchase sex [13], to have privileges in the workplace [14]. I suspect these are not exactly the men's rights you are thinking about for the topic of the article.
• 1 is an individual critique of the International Conference on Population and Development report, concluding that "many men and boys all over the world continue to face acute disadvantages compared to better-off males."

There are no references here to "men's rights" - at least of the sort you would like explored - separate from the men's rights movement. As I have asked before, when you want to make a point in future please back it up with references and diffs. The request above was for a coherent statement of the scope of the article backed up with specific reliable sources; that means the names of particular books, articles, page numbers, links. Sweeping general statements and your opinions just don't cut it, and in my view this conversation showed be tabled until somebody actually comes up with some real goods to discuss. --Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, seriously, why don't you start with a simple read of a couple of recent secondary sources, and worry later about which specific google results you believe are relevant or not. How about starting with Benatar's The Second Sexism and Bauermeister's Is There Anything Good About Men? Those two secondary sources alone have more than enough material, as a start, to fill a WP article about men's issues. Memills (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to apologize to everyone here, I have no intention in writing a Men’s Issues article. Especially if it is going to come with perspectives such as, “I'm sure most Wikipedians were saying the same thing about the new "Women's Issues" article back in the 1950s.” Wikipedia in the 1950s was . . …….what? Or did I miss something? Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there really was a great deal of resistance to the inclusion of a Wikipedia "Women's Issues" article in the 1950s. It was probably, in part, due to the frustration having to use IBM punch cards. :-P

I see you were being facetious too, suggesting you were working on a Men’s Issues article.

And, I believed them when they told me that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary... Memills (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell:

• men's rights directs to men's rights movement
• women's rights movement directs to women's rights

I find this a bit confusing. Does this mean that in the case of one gender, the movement said to be about rights is more notable than the issue of rights, but in the opposite case, the issue of rights is more notable than the movement said to be about rights?

It would be nice if Wikipedia had an equal sort of presentation for both issues. I personally would think the abbreviated "X's rights" (how it currently is for women) is the superior format. All sorts of things can be affixed like 'movement' or 'activist' or 'activism' so using the root term is the best and most inclusive label seeing as how the articles will inevitably discuss them all.

To make one gender (female) about the 'rights' (the issues) and the other gender (male) about the 'movement' (the people) it shows a strange difference in focus here. As if one is considered to be a valid issue worth discussion on its own, where as in the other case, the other issue is not considered valid enough for its own article and instead what is considered notable is targetting the people pushing the issues.

Really we should keep trying to move this to simply "men's rights" in line with the women's article. There is nothing special about 'movement' and it shows a bias and excessive amount of specificity when the issue is broader and the word doesn't stand out as always (or only) thing following the 'mens's rights' phrase. Ranze (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't try to write articles in a vacuum of theoretical neutrality - we write articles based on how subjects have been treated in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV.) If two topics have been treated differently in reliable sources (as these two topics have,) then Wikipedia can (and actively should) treat them differently in our articles. This article has been discussed tons on this talk page in the past, a lot of previous discussions on this page (including some in the archives) talk about the reasons for this difference in treatment. 00:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Baloney... that is not what WP:NPOV means. Reliable sources from one side a debate should not be "treated differently" simply because the other side thinks they should. That's a red herring. And it has been used repeatedly here to obfuscate the issues and to suppress inclusion the of reliable sources ( ...but, only those sources that should be "treated differently"). Memills (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple people have requested, multiple times, that you provide sources to back up your claim that enough independent sources exist that deal with "men's rights" as a coherent concept separate from the men's rights movement so as to warrant a separate article. You have not done so. As far as I have been able tell, this is because such sources don't exist. When such sources do exist, we'll have an article on "men's rights." Until they do, we shouldn't, because we treat topics in the way that reliable sources treat them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My goodness -- "sources don't exist" re men's rights and men's issues? It is hard to take you seriously sometimes. I have repeatedly listed here solid secondary sources to issues related to men's rights (and not about the men's rights movement per se). Say, Bauermeister, Nathanson and Young, and Benatar to name just a few authors of recent academic books about men's rights and issues -- the authors are university professors. Give 'em a read --- refreshing novel in that they don't toe the postmodernist, social constructionist feminist theory "scholarship" promulgated in the inbred academic backwaters of Women's Studies Departments. Memills (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you have repeatedly been told that books that do not discuss men's rights but in your opinion are about "issues related to men's rights" are not appropriate or useable, as it is original research and synthesis to do so. I am also curious that you would recommend the Bauermeister book. Note this review from Globe and Mail. "Nevertheless, the book fails. It argues poorly, its basic claims are unsubstantiated, its methodology almost insults the reader"..."Cherry-picked references from medical studies, history, news accounts, anthropology, "pop" and feminist literature highlight one of the book's main problems. This is a book of speculation that tries to become fact by carefully selecting supportive evidence, anecdotes, other theories and Baumeister's own personal experience; then he appears to give all categories of "data" equal weight."[15] I'm guessing that you are thinking, well, yes, a review from a MRA opponent, therefore predictable and discountable. But surprise, surprise, it was written by Wendy McElroy - who is actually a well-known supporter of men's rights cause! Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation

I suggest that Male genital mutilation is added to the list of Issues, not really sure how to go about referencing it etc but yeah 121.99.65.54 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that talks about it in relation to the Men's rights movement. Then look at how someone else has referenced something a copy the format. Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This Article Is Problematic Because It Fails NPOV

"...Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..."

This article fails NPOV because it does not represent fairly, proportionally and without bias. This appears to be a feminist article.

Where are the citations to Men's Rights academics, including William Farrell; Lionel Tiger, Gordon Finley, PhD, David Benatar, ect.?

I suggest that this article include fair, proportiate works of relevant and suitable scholars. Does anyone have any objection to edits of this page to include a wider prospective, consistent with attendant wikipedia protocols?

I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has been in need of scholarly sources from the beginning. They cannot be added fast enough, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that scholarly sources are at a premium. However, I have a couple of questions. Do you have any sources to suggest that Lionel Tiger, Gordon Finley and David Benatar identify with the concept of men's rights and the men's rights movement per se? I don't know about the others, but from what I've seen in his book and articles Benatar clearly disassociates his ideas from those of the MR movement. He approves of feminist principles for one and doesn't frame his material in terms of rights at all. On the other hand, Warren Farrell (not William) is certainly good source for the men's rights movement. He isn't an academic however: he hasn't been employed by an educational establishment for years and years. Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All good points. To tell the truth, I am not in a position to have an academic argument about the sources I used as examples. I would be ambivalent to any requirement that an academic or scholar be members of the subject of their research. Certainly one can be an expert on African fauna without having to be fauna themselves. By way of example, noone is going to argue that Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood, or Messinger are Men's Rights Activists, or proponents of the Men's Rights Movement. Yet, this article is pretty much based upon their work. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, is a scholarly expert on African fauna going to be counted as an expert on men's rights just because he chooses to write on the topic, and he has a degree in some other field? No, he is not. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your statement. Is it the degree in some specific academic catagory that determines expertise? Without said credential one cannot be an expert in a subject of study? Or are you stating that without a degree in "Men's Rights," one cannot be an expert or an authority? Certainly, many of the pro-feminst authorities that base much of this article don't have degrees in "Men's Rights." Published, peer reviewed scholarship and/or any authority recognized by wikipedia as a reliable source is acceptable. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If a political scientist, sociologist or anthropologist comments on men's rights then I'm sure we can all agree that this the word of a topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're going off on a tangent Binksternet - Vicioustwist is correct: peer reviewed scholarship, no matter a person's primary degree (because if it was good enough for a reliable source it IS good enough for wikipedia), is all that matters. However SLP1 has asked the pertinent question: are Benatar, Tiger and Finley linked to Men's rights by other reliable sources?--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that we have all been talking past each other a bit here; part of this is my fault for not being clear in my first post. Vicioustwist, I didn't mean to imply that academics cited here need to men's rights activists or have degrees in "men's rights". This is an article about the men's rights movement; that means we can and should include material written about the movement by scholars. It doesn't matter what their academic or philosophical (feminist or not) background is; as an encyclopedia we have to fairly represent their published views. (see WP:NPOV for more details. Other good independent sources are newspaper articles, books etc once again, once again on the topic of the MRM. There other possible source for this article: prominent members of the men's rights movement itself. These people don't need to be academics at all, but they do clearly need to be identified (ideally by themselves) as part of the movement, per WP:BLP concerns amongst other things. That's why Farrell was a good suggestion: he isn't an academic, but he does clearly identify as part of the movement and is a prominent spokesperson for the MRM. (BTW, he is actually already cited in the article). On the other hand Benatar doesn't write about the men's rights movement or indeed frame his writings in terms of men's rights issues; and he doesn't apparently identify as a member of the movement. In fact, when he does briefly mention the MR movement in his writings he is generally quite negative about them. People reviewing the book have noticed this (links available given above).

The problem with this article is that editors regularly come here and make one of two claims:

• "this important issue, [insert a favourite issue], is a men's rights issue," without any reliable sources saying that anybody other than the editor thinks that it is. In other words, no direct link to the men's rights movement is made in any sources is provided.
• "we should include material by this important writer [insert name here] who writes about men's rights"; but no reliable sources are provided saying that anybody other than the editor thinks that s/he does write about men's rights per se or is a member of the MR movement.

That's why before we consider your suggestions about Tiger or Finley we need to have some more details backed up with reliable sources; do they write about the "men's rights movement" or "men's rights"? Or do they identify as a men's rights activist or a member of the movement? These linkages need to made directly in reliable sources. Slp1 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is I who is confused to some extent. Although I mentioned Tiger and company, I was using them just as examples, and may they not be appropriate for inclusion. I now see that there has been some history of "edit warring" going on regarding this page and see that there backdrop of controversy about editing this page. I am going to hold off for the time being adding or editing this page, because I don't want to exacerbate tensions, if they do in fact exist, and would like some consensus. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanction

I noticed while editing this that the following message appears at the top:

WARNING This article is under a community general sanction. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

I find this warning confusing as there is little information about it. For example: how and when did a sanction start? When and how could it end? Who has been banned as a result of editing? These seem like important questions to ask but it seems like we're left in the dark about it. Is there a way in which editors could be more informed about what this means and learn more? Either by improving the warning, posting some kind of template, or at least clarifying it here on the talk page?

A clarification (and example, when actions were taken) of what 'disruptive edits' mean in this context would be valuable in guiding us. Ranze (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information you are looking for can be found here: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. This link is at the top of this talk page, for future reference. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and harmonized the text of the editnotice on the article page with the warning on the top of this talk page. If anyone has any further suggestions for improving it, I would imagine it could definitely be improved further :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The verbiage is fairly standard; I took it from the Paul Ryan editnotice. OTH, the Barak Obama page is also under sanctions and they link to the discussion. IOW, there was no intent to confuse, and no issues with the new verbiage. KillerChihuahua 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit to History section

I'm concerned about this recent edit[16] - it does not seem, to me, to reflect the cited sources. Does anyone else have an opinion here? It's a small edit, but it does change the meaning of the sentence. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that edit myself, before seeing your comment here. I disagreed so strongly with the change that I immediately reversed it. It is not just feminists that see the men's rights movements as a counter-movement to the women's rights movement, it is just about everybody, including the scholars who have written our sources. Basically, the men's rights movement would not exist without the actions of feminists or the women's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The scholars cited in this article are feminists.

Most of the issues raised by the MRM are independent of feminism. There is a focus on feminism within the Men's Rights Movement because it is the largest obstacle to its success and feminist concepts such as patriarchy theory create ideological conflict between the two groups. Squirtlekin (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Replying to Binksternet)I agree with everything you said here; I nearly reverted it myself, but I'm wary of doing that here because of the article sanctions. I support your reversion, though, obviously. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited this paragraph to clarify that this is how feminists view the Men's Rights Movement. The sources provided are by feminist authors, and are not the views of MRAs or neutral sources.

I think the section should be rewritten to be more neutral and stay on the topic of the MRM's history, and perhaps this paragraph should be moved to a section for feminist views on the MRM. --Squirtlekin (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The scholars are scholars first. Their research is peer-reviewed and accurate. There is no call for someone to attempt to reduce their scholarship by hinting that they are biased. Their scholarship is not biased, especially on the question of what was the impetus for the men's rights movement. The best you can do, Squirtlekin, is find a respected thought leader who says that the scholarship on the topic is biased toward feminism because it is covered primarily by feminists. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Then can you provide evidence that shows this is an accurate depiction of MRA views? Can you provide neutral and MRA sources which agree with this depiction of the MRM?

If not, then there is no reason to describe the views of feminists as an academic consensus. Squirtlekin (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you, the editor who wishes to add text. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore it's wikipedia's job to accurately reflect what reliable sources say not 'the truth'. That might seem strange but that's how this project works--Cailil ^talk 11:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Squirtlekin to clarify, the neutral point of view means that wikipedia records the views of sources without inserting our biases into or about them. It does NOT require a source be "neutral" just that we don't frame it to suit our personal points of view. Your above comment shows a common misunderstanding of that policy (that a source should be neutral)--Cailil ^talk 12:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all sources should be neutral, I'm saying that only including feminist sources makes for a clearly biased article. Are these impartial statements?

"Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights. The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest."

Why not cite MRA writers such as Warren Farrell? He and Herb Goldberg are mentioned, but not cited for where they supposedly make their statements.

Although this paragraph has been moved to another section now, at least.Squirtlekin (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Farrell is mentioned 3 times by name in the article and 2 of his books are cited. Besides it doesn't matter who wrote the info it just matters that it passes wikipedia's tests for reliability--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

separating feminist commentary from primary sources in the men's rights movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the history section there was a citation from academic feminist sarah maddison. I have no problem with her or the source, but considering the controversy surrounding this topic and bias self-identified feminists could have in regards to it, it is disingenuous and misleading to include feminist sources without specifically identifying them as feminist. I think a separate section should be created for feminist interpretation and response to the men's rights movement. In cases where a source self-identifying as feminist is very relevant outside of this section, that source needs to be qualified as coming from a feminist perspective. To do otherwise is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)

If a scholar writes a scholarly work in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal such Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, then any attempt to reduce their scholarship should be dismissed, not encouraged. A scholar should compartmentalize any bias she has, and the peer review process assures us that the research and analysis have been assessed as rigorous enough for us. I strongly disagree that we need to create a special section intended to ghetto-ize any scholar who also happens to be a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, what Binksternet said. If something is published in a solid academic source, it's not our place to try to implicitly belittle their scholarship. We consider scholarly sources - especially ones that have underwent peer review - to be of the highest quality. We can present alternate viewpoints where they have been published in sources of suitable quality, but we present scholarship as scholarship. (I'm pretty busy today, so will be unlikely to be too active replying here or watching changes made to this page until tomorrow.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Feminism has unfortunately gained a hegemony on the social sciences and as such has gained significant power to frame the debate in these communities. In addition, there is evidence and sources that I could provide that demonstrate this as the case. The social sciences (social psychology especially) suffer a lot of problems. Mainly it comes from over interpreting results, but also comes from faulty statistics as well. However, here is not the forum for that extended discussion. Possibly, that could be included as a section of this article though...

I do not wish to belittle the work of academics and it is very important that any ACTUAL belittling be removed, but it is extraordinarily disingenuous to allow the people who mostly dislike and disagree with this movement to frame the entire narrative without disclosing their perspective. I don't see how, if worded fairly, identifying the source as feminist inspired is belittling. I do not advocate getting rid of sources, but I do advocate putting all sources in proper context. And knowing that a source derives ultimately from someone with a stake and position in this debate, opposite to those who actually make up the movement itself, is important for full disclosure. Without this minor acquiescence, it simply will not be possible for the MRM to take this page seriously to edit it actively.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.250.95 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 March 2013‎ (UTC)

If you are going to try and tackle the question of whether feminists have "gained a hegemony" (which I don't see) then you'll have to look in the mirror and ask yourself why is it that men's rights advocates have so little traction in academia. Is it because of the ridiculousness of the MRM position, the obvious fact that women were downtrodden for millennia and have only recently won some degree of equality? Yeah, probably. The pendulum has not swung the other way, making man subservient to woman. The MRM position is afraid of such a development, but other folks are not at all concerned. Until MRM gets its own share of scholars, the problem with your negative assessment of this Wikipedia article will continue to be this: scholars define the topic. That is, scholars who say things you don't like to hear. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editorialized section violating NPOV

These sentences in the history section are very editorialized and either need to be rewritten or deleted:

Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[9][5] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the text is well-cited to William Rhys and to Michael Meissner; both respected in their field. The analysis is not contradicted by any other scholar that I know of. If you find a scholar who disagrees then we can put both viewpoints in there. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this wording accurately reflects the intents of the authors. Specifically, rather than being neutral the use of "" is intended to presupposes certain attitudes about this issue and is seething with sarcasm. It is absolutely atrocious in the way it is currently written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.250.95 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read it as sarcasm at all. I think the quotation marks are just there to indicate that MRAs are using the same words as feminists according to the source - that they are "quoting" feminism, if you will. They might not be necessary, though, but nobody who dislikes the passage has yet suggested a way it could be rewritten, so I guess it stands for now. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

They look like scare quotes to me, though that may not be how they're intended. Reyk _YO! 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that, though it wasn't how I read them personally. What about just removing the quotation marks? I don't think they're needed; I think the text works just fine without them. The fact that some people are seeing sarcasm or scare quotes here means we should do something, I think. Is there any support for removing the quotation marks without changing the words? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing them if people are perceiving them as scare quotes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Influx of new editors

Hi all - as you have probably noticed, there have been an influx of new editors on this page. This influx will probably continue for some time. I recently had some conversations with men's rights activists who I know in real life about this set of issues, and they convinced me it would be a potentially productive idea for me to try to directly engage with Reddit's men's rights community. I've gone ahead and done so. From talking with many of these people, I have the feeling that they would genuinely like to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way. I'm hoping that I (and other established editors) can guide them towards making productive contributions to the encyclopedia. Obviously, all of Wikipedia's normal content policies still apply, as does the probation that applies to this article, but I would ask y'all to try as hard as you can to assume good faith (even if combined with ignorance) on the part of new editors from this influx until they definitively prove bad faith. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, it will be nice to see more editors, but unless the culture of editing on Wikipedia changes my fear is they will come and go as many have before. CSDarrow (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to some thoughtful editors & edits. My preadvice for them is (1)use good sources, (2)don't tell us men are getting screwed because they have to open doors for women or if they are on a sinking ship, that they are the last to get off & (3) don't say "Well they say this at such and such a women's rights page". It have problems with other articles, deal with that there. Other than that, well and a few more thing, welcome to this little Peyton Place called wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure any new editors will find your message to them both warm and welcoming. CSDarrow (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I found it both warm and welcoming, so much so that I don't even know how to go about dealing with something like this. I honestly do not understand what I did wrong here, why it's wrong or how I can keep from receiving the same sort of verbal assault in the future. As far as I know, I followed all of wikipedia's guidelines, I provided suggestions of quotes from a good source that's already used in the article to help improve the article, I made no statement one way or another about the state of men's rights in general and didn't even mention other pages.Ismarc (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wowza. I certainly don't think you did anything that could have justified those comments, Ismarc. I hope you won't let one individual scare you away. I think some good work has been done here for the past few days. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ismarc, carptrash is completely out of line. I have posted numerous responses in your defense. She is being extremely immature. In her most recent edit summary to the talk page she even "accidentally" wrote "dies" instead of does. She must have some sort of emotional problem. Please do not let her get to you. You have made good edits. I have also asked for more experienced wikipedia users to get involved and take action against her obnoxious behavior. Hopefully that will be resolved soonYhwhsks (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

She has been advised previously to retract a few ad-hominems directed at MRAs in general. Apparently, that hasn't yet stopped her incivility. Memills (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that a bunch of men's rights activists have been invited from Reddit to edit this article? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Having come here after browsing ANI, I have to wonder how Kevin has avoided scrutiny for his confession of canvassing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate. Not Kevins's style. At all. Let's just hope that the Reddit crowd will edit constructively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Feminism

"Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[14][5] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

The first sentence is dubious in that "feminist rhetoric of 'rights' and 'equality'" is a rhetoric that does not "belong" to feminism and has been used by many movements all the back to Spartacus and the Roman slave revolt, and probably beyond. The second sentence violates wp:undue. Both sentences should be removed, especially the second, they add little to the section and have aged references.CSDarrow (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You're challenging what is in the scholarly sources. In order to modify it, you must locate a citation that says this finding is wrong. The modification would then be something like "sources A and B say that feminist rhetoric was co-opted, sources C and D say it was not." Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is not how Wikipedia works. CSDarrow (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact it is CSDarrow. Wikipedia records what sources say not 'the truth'. If this thread descends into general discussion of the topic of rights it will be closed. This area is under probation--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact Cailil, the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in five "pillars" WP:FIVE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The explanations of neutral point of view WP:YESPOV and WP:NPOV make excellent reading. The sentences under dispute were added without discussion or rationale and violate WP:NPOV on multiple counts. I think it is good we all regularly re-read the fundamental principles underpinning Wikipedia, lest we fall into the all too human trap of adding that which we find emotionally satisfying rather than pertinent and constructive. On this point I am sure you'd agree.

This area is indeed under probation and the associated terms and conditions I might add also apply to you Cailil. I am informed many editors are falling away from Wikipedia because of a perceived hostile editing environment. I hope this exchange has not exasperated this. As always a pleasure. CSDarrow (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exacerbated?

The scenario I described above neatly fits our YESPOV guideline regarding relative prominence of opposing views: either no scholar disagrees and we state the analysis as fact, or a prominent scholar disagrees and we present both views equally, or a prominent MRM thought leader disagrees and we attribute his lesser position with appropriate weight relative to the mainstream scholarly consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact CSDarrow, thank you for that useful and spot on comment. You are doing a great service.

In fact Binksternet, the text being discussed very clearly violates NPOV. It obviously assumes a specific point of view by its judicious use of tasteless quoting. Since no one is arguing to remove the source, this isn't about the source in question. It is about false representation of said source and the interjection of sarcastic writing that doesn't represent that source. I welcome you to provide a specific quote from his source that supports the current wording.

In fact Cailil, thank you for not censoring anymore discussions lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this section is important in that it provides a 1) place for feminist commentary, 2) provides full disclosure about the origin of the source, and 3) will eliminate the need to discuss the perspective of each of these sources individually (which some mistakenly confuse with belittling). For the sake of integrity and honesty, it is import to disclose the perspective of a source with such a controversial issue and this provide a neutral way to do so. Bringing back another comment minus any digressions outside the scope of this forum.

I do not wish to belittle the work of academics and it is very important that any ACTUAL belittling be removed, but it is extraordinarily disingenuous to allow the people who mostly dislike and disagree with (the MRM) to frame the entire narrative without disclosing their perspective. I don't see how, if worded fairly, identifying the source as feminist inspired is belittling. I do not advocate getting rid of sources, but I do advocate putting all sources in proper context. And knowing that a source derives ultimately from someone with a stake and position in this debate, opposite to those who actually make up the movement itself, is important for full disclosure. Without this minor acquiescence, it simply will not be possible for the MRM to take this page seriously to edit it actively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have likely overstepped my bounds in making the change, but, I've updated the section to reflect the contents of the source, using a direct quote from the source (using suggested wording from Cailil) and adjusted the quotations marks in a manner that I believe accurately represents the separation of items rather than scare quotes. If there is concern about this not being representative of the source, I'm more than willing to share the entirety of the relevant section so that it can be discussed in context. Ismarc (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this contribution Ismarc. It was a good edit. It has carried over some of the NPOV from the previous wording, but this is a definite improvement and is moving in the right direction. The quotes still appear a little like scare quotes. I understand baby steps will be needed however. Keep up the good work.Yhwhsks (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I left the remaining portion with the scary looking quotes (reason the term is used like that will be seen in a moment) because I was not comfortable making the call that a consensus had been reached. The sentence is a paraphrasing of the source that uses the quotation marks to separate out those particular framings being used from the description of their use. In the context of the source, they are obviously not scare quotes, but that same context isn't carried into the article. I'm for removal of the quotation marks on the last sentence, but I would much rather see a description of the conclusions of the source rather than chaining together paraphrases from each source. Ismarc (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If no one else contributes to this discussion in the next day or so, then I will take that as evidence that there is no objection to removing the quotes entirely. Better even is to go to the actual source and skim through it and completely rewrite those sentences from scratch. In all of the edits I have made I have found that the source in question is far more generous to the mrm than you would guess by the current wording. As a side note, if for any reason you can't access a journal article check /r/scholar Yhwhsks (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Williams, 1995

Having read through the entire source, there is no mention of Men's Rights, the Men's Rights Movement or Feminism. In fact the entire article is completely independent of any particular movement, providing coverage of how movements behave in general, not providing an opinion or coverage of movements themselves. The source does not in any way support what it is listed as supporting. This fails WP:ORIG because it is applying conclusions reached in the source to organizations not covered by the source.

I have not changed the wording of the article at all, even though there is now a statement that us un-cited, as I have not had time to go through the other source used in conjunction with 14 in the "Relation to feminism" section. Ismarc (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Ismarc on page 134 of that article it says:

Men's Rights groups (with names such as "Dads Against Discrimination" or "Fathers for Equal Rights") have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement (see Williams and Williams forthcoming) to argue that custody decisions regarding children should be based on impersonal criteria such as income rather than any preference toward maternal care:

The article deals with more ideas relating to men's movements on page 135 and 136, you may have missed it. Williams also has another article called 'All we want is equality: Rhetorical framing in the men's rights movement'. There's probably more info in that one, but the article you mention does in fact relate directly to the topic. Also FYI WP:ORG has nothing to do with whether a source is usable in an article, its only purpose is in determining whether an organization is notable enough for an article on wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, I missed that, thank you for catching it. And I was mentioning WP:ORIG, not WP:ORG, because I didn't see anything relating directly to the article in the source (instead I saw how the source could be applicable in an analysis, but not directly relating). Ismarc (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored the citation but I added a relevant quote from page 134 to help in future discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(Hope I'm indenting at the right level...) Cailil, I've gone through that source for that section several times now, and it does support the statement it's cited with of

"The men's rights movement is generally understood as a backlash or countermovement to feminism."

However, for

Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.

it does not use the term or insinuation that the rhetoric was co-opted, instead calling it "adopted". I have been unable to find any reference to it outside the issue of family law (understandable given the the scope and goal of the source), but does appear to use family law as one example. I wouldn't want to draw conclusions that don't exist in the source, but would have no issues if the statement was presented in the same tone as the source (preferred route would be to use "adopted" instead of "co-opted" for that line). I haven't had a chance to go back through the other source cited for that statement (it's fairly long, so it may be a bit before I get all the way through it, I don't want to miss anything like before), but if it doesn't support the statement's tone and position, I would rather see a citation that does. I also did a quick search of what I have access to and didn't find 'All we want is equality: Rhetorical framing in the men's rights movement' (just found citations to it), so I haven't been able to go through that article to see if it more closely represents what is present. (and my last thought, this should probably be included in the section over this up above on the talk page, but this is more about the source content than wording).Ismarc (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was only replying to your comment that "there [was] no mention of Men's Rights, the Men's Rights Movement or Feminism". I'd be 100% on board with correcting the text to match the source. It might be best to rewrite as Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement".--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the way Cailil has rewritten it here - "co-opted" isn't a neutral way of paraphrasing a source that says "adopted," the words have rather different connotations. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:

"The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of "children's needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

What relevance does this have to a section on Relation to Feminism. Rhys Davies is not presenting himself as a feminist commentator and the comment itself has no reference to feminism. It is also being presented as a fact, when in fact it's someones opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's being presented as Rhys Williams opinion if you use it the way I suggested above:

Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement"

--Cailil ^talk 12:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammatically it would not suggest the second sentence is linked to Rhys Williams. Otherwise the previous two sentences would also suggest that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg believe:- "Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism etc .....". The question as to what this sentence has to do with Relation to Feminism still stands, as does did Rhys Williams actually say that? Or have I lost track of what the 2 final sentences have morphed into at present?

I would also raise the question of the significance of Rhys Williams' opinions. His work is nearly 20yrs old, and as far I we see atm is the only person who has made this point. Wikipedia chronicles significant opinions, I would question that a single 18yr old opinion is significant.

CSDarrow (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Williams' statement will forever be applicable to its time, and should stand as it is until challenged by a peer who says that the MRM did not adopt feminist rhetoric. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'logic' of your response is utterly lost on me.CSDarrow (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Grammatically it attributes the quote to Williams. There could only be confusion if the cite is incorrectly placed. The section could be better strcutured as a whole - it doesn't need to be one paragraph. Right now its just chuncks of information banged together. Also the weaselish "which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest" could simply be dropped - its not necessary.
The essay itself is well cited (by others[17]) and well sourced (in that the journal that published it is reliable and notable for scholarship) that is what/how we assess significance - in an article that needs more well sourced material such an argument is a cul de sac I'm afraid--Cailil ^talk 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2) I agree with Binksternet, the Williams cite should stay. It was actually moved out of the History section recently,[18] as irrelevant, but I disagree with that assessment - it's pretty clearly relevant to the History section given its age. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no especial problem with Rhys Williams' thoughts in general be included provided they are pertinent to "Relation to Feminism". My main concern is with the 'weaslish' content which seems an attempt to soapbox another notion onto the entry, by way of an example. If this is removed and the rest wordsmithed a bit I am fine. There is however a difference between using the same rhetoric and adopting someones rhetoric. The later suggests one was inspired by the other group, either case is still pertinent to the section. CSDarrow (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been slowly going through sources I have access to as well as looking at other suitable sources with the intent to completely restructure the section, providing 3 general headings for it: 1) the theory/beliefs behind the Men's Rights Movement (non-critical statements of what they believe and why, without any value judgements of those beliefs), 2) how it relates to feminism (comparison of both similar and dissimilar ideals) and 3) criticisms and analysis of those beliefs/theory. As the article stands now, it's nearly impossible to determine what the core beliefs of the Men's Rights Movement are because statements critical of those beliefs are mixed in with the definition of them. The idea is to make it clear what the movement's goals and beliefs are, how that relates to feminism and then have that contrasted against (researched, studied and expert) opinions of the movement and their goals and beliefs. It's going to take some time to get through all the sources before I'm confident there is enough to structure it this way, a few days at least. Ismarc (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Long overdue. Memills (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Children's needs rhetoric

The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of "children's needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

Have been wp:bold and removed the sentence. As it is entirely inadequate due to the weasel example. If someone wants to wordsmith it then perhaps we can re-include in another form. CSDarrow (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Three experienced editors, Cailil, Binksternet and Dawn Bard, have explained to you that the reference should stay. You removed it anyway. I am the forth experienced editor to ask that you refrain from removing sourced content which directly and unambiguously supports the description. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, these sentences have been discussed very extensively and in a refreshingly civilised manner. My edit is not entirely out of step with this discussion, which I suggest you read. Wikipedia is not governed by a majority, by reputation or by patently thin and uniformed reasoning of the likes you have offered. I have edit reverted and invite you to join the discussion before editing further. CSDarrow (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is a reason to change the summary accompanying by a source, not a reason to remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read my reason for deleting further above, which includes:- "If someone wants to wordsmith it then perhaps we can re-include in another form." Why was this re-sectioned? It was part of a larger discussion and the context of my words and action has gone. CSDarrow (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Smaller sections speed previews. I've moved the sentence to the history section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply put you have just recently entered this talk page and undone the good faith and constructive work of a number of editors. I suggest you read WP:DISRUPT especially the section on consensus building and WP:CTDAPE. I have reverted you edit. CSDarrow (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your initial objection was that it was not appropriately placed in the "relation to feminism" section, so I moved it into the history section. You objected to it on the basis of age, and Binksternet noted that Williams' opinion is appropriate in the history section, particularly since it has not been since refuted. I agree with this point. Cailil pointed out that this is a reliable source. I agree. Dawn Bard agreed with Binksternet and Cailil that Williams should stay and that it should be kept in the history section. I agree with this also. You objected to the "weaselish" content. I don't see it as weaselish, it is a specific criticism of the MRM. WP:WEASEL does not apply that I can see, and as I said before, is a reason to change the wording, not remove a source. Sonicyouth agreed with Dawn Bard, Binksternet and Cailil. That's now five editors agreeing the source should remain, and me specifically pointing the one guideline you are alluding to doesn't apply. "Wordsmithing" is a reason to suggest different phrasings, it is not removal. WP:DE does not apply since I've been here less than four hours. "Consensus" does not mean "whatever I want", consensus means how the current page content links with the overall policies and guidelines which document the consensus of the larger wikipedia community. The constructive work of numerous editors seems to support keeping that citation and phrase, and your objections don't seem to be based on anything found in the policies and guidelines. Are there any issues I am missing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Men's rights activists adopted the feminist rhetoric of 'rights'....... is motivated by self-interest" quote.

The sentences in the History section:-

Men's rights activists adopted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[7][5][8] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest

are being quoted as a fact when it they are an opinion, they also do not belong in the History Section. Also the second sentence advances the extra notion

"... frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest".

These are Weasel words as they are coatracking a pejorative opinion for which there is not a demonstrated significant support, in violation of WP:UNDUE. I have removed the final sentence and replaced the other in the Relation to Feminism section; in the form originally crafted by Cailil. If some one wants to wordsmith the other sentence to remove the offending example then fine.

All of this is not entirely out of step with what has been extensively discussed before.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All your concerns have been addressed by multiple editors in the previous two sections. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth, This section was discussed extensively before you and another came in here like a bull in a china shop and undid the good work of others. Answer the points I have made above which are in line with the consensus that had been achieved s, and answer them please. Also read the talk pages before you start editing in future please. Simple put you can't state opinions as facts or use weasel words, this is not advanced stuff Sonicyouth. CSDarrow (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences have been discussed extensively and no editors agreed with your repeated demands to delete them and the three sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No they were discussed extensively before you and another arrived and broad a consensus was arrived at. To say you have discussed them is perhaps a stretch in my opinion. Answer my points before editing, read them above. CSDarrow (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They were discussed extensively before and the result was that Cailil, Binksternet, Dawn Bard, and WLU disagreed with your deletion of sourced material. I am the fifth experienced editor who tells you to stop. By the way, may I remind you that this article is on article probation and this is completely uncalled for? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Untrue depiction of events, stop edit warring, answers my points and read WP:PILLARS. CSDarrow (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the second sentence is that the way it is written violates WP:NPOV, or more specifically, WP:IMPARTIAL. I recommend to fix this that it should be attributed to the person stating it, and not have it stated by Wikipedia's Voice. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating a misapprehension of policies and guidelines does not make your argument more convincing.

There are now four sources for that statement, sourced to five different individuals, suggesting it is not Williams' sole opinion.

Please note that I summarized the previous discussion immediately before you added a new subsection. Was I incorrect in my summary? Because that summary seemed to indicate you didn't have support for your actions despite claiming above that you do.

Note the full quote of WP:IMPARITAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." This is about presenting viewpoints; what viewpoints are there, besides yours, that disagree with the statement now referenced to four sources? It sounds like you want to remove this text because you disagree with it. This is inappropriate, what you need are sources that disagree with it. Do you have any? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition to "Relation to Feminism" section

Looking at Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse", page 269-270 provides coverage directly relating to the anti-feminism and the perspectives of the men's rights advocates. Rather than try to summarize myself (due to the current status of the page), I've included the two paragraphs that I believe contain either good for pulling quotes from or to summarize.

“ The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity. To the contrary, men's rights advocates are critical of the ways masculinity has entrapped, limited, and harmed men, and they want to reconstruct masculinity that is more healthful, peaceful, and nurturing. More important, they do not see feminism as the way to accomplish this improvement in men's lives. Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges. ”

“ Thus, to men's rights advocates, while the women's movement now allows a woman to "have her cake and eat it too,"the continued imposition of a rigidly narrow male sex role results primarily in costs to men (and ultimately to the family, schools, and other institutions). For these men, what is now needed is a movement that will free men, who will then counter these destructive effects of feminism. ”

Ismarc (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks not relevant to this thread.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Have their cake and eat it too?" A "return to patriarchal arrangements?" We never left them. TODAY they are trying to pull tee-shirts off Amazon that read "Keep Calm and Hit Her", "Keep Calm and Rape a Lot" and "Keep Calm and Rape Them". Which part of the cake is this? But if you hurry you can probably still get one. Carptrash (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, your post is off-topic. We aren't here to debate the statements in a given source. In addition, what kind of shirt is being sold on amazon is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not the place to try to prove the patriarchal conspiracy theory. Please keep your discussion on point from now on.yhwhsks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC) And here I am being lectured about wikipedia process by a red link who does not even kow enough to sigh his edits. Impressive Carptrash (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked out the article. While it IS in a peer review journal, this is the author's opinion with no factual data to support it. Now debatable as the view may be, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to back up these claims- they are simply an opinion. I think it would be more effective to have hard data that supports the argument, rather than these quotes. Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(Moved your response to below the full quotes to keep things together). It is the author's analysis of what members of the Men's Rights Movement SAY that their beliefs are, which does include sourced and researched information (using Free Men as an example). Enumerating the beliefs of a group doesn't require an assessment of the validity of their claims or data to support or discredit their views. That would be covered in a section on criticism, or where the belief/issues were covered in more detail, so long as the data to validate/invalidate the point was in relation to the Men's Rights Movement (example, False Accusations of Rape would need hard data as it relates to the Men's Rights Movement, pulling in unrelated data for or against it being an issue that's unrelated would be WP:ORIG). There are numerous (every source I've studied that's already cited in the article that I've gone through so far) has reached the same conclusion as to what the Men's Rights Movement believes, the suggestion of these quotes was because they were succinctly put. Ismarc (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the comment down, it's much appreciated (and sorry about the misfire). I think your clarification is great. I would simply suggest putting before the quotes some contextual sentence along the lines of "Generalizing about the beliefs held by men's rights movement activists, Messner states that...QUOTE." That way his quote is not being presented as a hard and steadfast truth, but as his own gloss and generalization about beliefs Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough...those two quotes are word-for-word copied directly out of the source that is from a peer reviewed academic journal that is used multiple times in the article already, including statements critical of the Men's Rights Movement that are being debated elsewhere on the talk page. There were indeed a large number of statements within that source that described the Men's Rights Movement's beliefs, but I found that these two were the most succinct and easily extracted without losing the context of what was said. These are not my words, they are not suggested text (unless others agree that using them as direct quotes about the Men's Rights Movement's opinion on feminism would be appropriate) and I do not understand why political statements against the content of sources are being made on the talk page here rather than discussing the content of the article. Ismarc (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

More of the same.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
because, fair or not, I tend, at least in my less appealing moods, to give very little respect to editors who come charging into an article such as this and have not been here long enough to even have blue links on their user pages. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, your discussion continues to be irrelevant. If all you can think to post is ad hominems and non-sequiturs, your contributions aren't required. Please keep on topic or don't participate. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I checked out the article. While it IS in a peer review journal, this is the author's opinion with no factual data to support it. Now debatable as the view may be, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to back up these claims- they are simply an opinion. I think it would be more effective to have hard data that supports the argument, rather than these quotes. Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC) This is to suggest that your edits ARE required? Interesting. Carptrash (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, I am not a new account, I know how to sign my posts, and I tell you your behviour is getting increasingly obnoxious. Comment on the content of the posts rather than the age of the commenter's account or their grasp of Wiki markup. Those are ad hominem attacks. Reyk YO! 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cailil. Closing the entire thread due to misbehavior of one user is an inappropriate action in this case. I intend to work on the original content of this thread in a productive manor. I imagine that ismarc intends to as well. Please talk to carptrash individually.Yhwhsks (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I can respect Reyk(javik)'s sentiments. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

More.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And thank you Yhwhsks for going blue. No big deal to you, but I have several thousand articles on my watchlist and feel a need to check out edits by anonymous and red linked editors. These is some of my (I hope you will agree) more appropriate actions. Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit by 99.185.132.212

That edit was mine, forgot to log in before editing.Ismarc (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete block of content

Added here

The first citation's link is incorrect and should be http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf. The second citation's link is incorrect but the content of the source is available at http://www.markwynn.com/sex-assault/false-allegations-recantations-unfounding-in-the-context-of-sa-2008.pdf.

The entire addition adds rates referenced directly from a source independent of the Men's Rights Movement (FBI crime index) for unfounded accusations, uses the second source to clarify that unfounded is not the same as false accusations, then quotes a source that refutes the use of these rates to represent false rape allegations, again with no association to the Men's Rights Movement (for or against, it is a direct examination of the FBI's reported numbers on false rape accusations. I propose the entire portion added be deleted per WP:SYNTH, as none of the content is related to the Men's Rights Movement or their stance on false rape allegations based on the sources. I have no issue with coverage of the Men's Rights Movement's perspective on the prevalence of false rape allegations, given that there is a source that examines the issue. Nor do I have an issue with coverage of claims against the use of those numbers, given there is a source that examines the issue from a perspective associated with the Men's Rights Movement.

At the time I deleted the content initially, I was quick to delete because it contained links to sources that led to 404's and documents not being found and was a clear synthesis of information rather than relating to the Men's Rights Movement in any way. When I saw that the change was reverted, I went back through in more detail, finding the appropriate links to the sources cited and more thoroughly read their content and I still feel the same way about it. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good eye Ismarc. This section is supposed to be about false rape accusations which are completely separate beast from unfounded allegations. Even the source itself states that the statistic is essentially meaningless because it doesn't have a consistent definition from one locality to another. In other words, statistics about unfounded allegations do not make us more informed about false rape statistics in any way, shape or form. I am sure this might be a useful thing to discuss somewhere, but not here. It is probably a good idea to take the axe to that blockYhwhsks (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Ismarc. I would certainly support axing the whole block; as you and Yhwhsks say, it's just not directly relevant to the topic at hand, so it's a little SYNTH-y to shoehorn it in here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree clearly not directly linked to this topic belongs in an article abour rape statistics not here--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus appears that the content isn't appropriate to have here, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. The content appears on False accusation of rape, so I'm going to modify the remaining section to link to that page so that those who want to see more detail about that topic independent of the Men's Rights Movement has easy access to it. Ismarc (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Supporting removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The last edit to the article

one by User:Yhwhsks, included a lot of changes, mostly additions I believe, to what were referenced sections. I am accepting on good faith that all the changes made will be reflected in those references. Carptrash (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss anything you disagree with and why. I am more than willing to discuss it in a civil matter. Most of the change involved consolidation of two redundant sentences. Even if the current form isn't final, I think this is a better draft to work from compared to what was there before. Yhwhsks (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with anything and yes, I will be civil. I'm asking you a question. You just added (I think you added it) "protection from false rape accusations" to the opening, referenced section. I am asking, if I look at those sources will I find " protection from false rape accusations" there? Since I did not find that phrase in an earlier version I am assuming that it is not part of the redundant issue, so, where did it come from? Carptrash (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And I believe that you added this section

"The men's rights movement explicitly rejects a number of feminist concepts including patriarchy theory, institutional discrimination, and gender as a social construct."

and I am looking through the references listed and just not finding it. Now I can only access one of the books on line, so if you would please give the page number in the other book where this can be found I will be able to go to bed knowing that my faith in you is justified. Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of these things come from the messner citation. Despite a disagreement with positions MRA take on several issues, he does state what their positions are. The false rape accusation concern can be found on page 255, and the rationale for the later sectoin can be found on page 266 and 267. As a side note, looking at these quotations again, it appears that citations 2-5 might actually all be the same article from messner. this should probably be fixed.Yhwhsks (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel as if I have slipped into an alternative parallel universe with what is going on in our article and on this discussion page. There is nothing about rape, false charges or othrewide, on my version of Messner's page 255 and on page 256 I find, "This movement (the men;s movement) tended to emphasize the primary importance of joining with women to confront patriarchy, with the goal of doing away with men's institutional privileges." This not only does not seem to support your edits, it seems to say exactly the opposite? What are we going to do so that our two very different universes can be joined as one? Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I too have seen some creative interpretation of Messner recently. Distortion of sources is a violation of the verifiability policy. Distortion of source to further a particular point of view is a violation of the NPOV policy. Please keep these policies in mind when editing. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two potential sources for "The Limits of the Male Sex Role", the full version available in Gender and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, (Jun., 1998), pp. 255-276 and parts of the article is available in "Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements", pp. 36-48. I haven't had time to see what differences there are, but given that the author states that parts of the article appear in the book, I prefer to use the full article. I'm not sure where you're accessing the article from, but, using http://www.jstor.org/stable/190285, the full context of the line you pulled out is

On one hand, an overtly anti-feminist men's rights movement developed. Men's rights organizations stressed the costs of narrow conceptions of masculinity to men and either downplayed or angrily disputed feminist claims that patriarchy benefited men at women's expense. On the other hand, a pro-feminist (some-times called "antisexist") men's movement developed. This movement tended to emphasize the primary importance of joining with women to confront patriarchy, with the goal of doing away with men's institutionalized privileges.

Page 269, 3rd paragraph then contains

The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity. To the contrary, men's rights advocates are critical of the ways masculinity has entrapped, limited, and harmed men, and they want to reconstruct masculinity that is more healthful, peaceful, and nurturing. More important, they do not see feminism as the way to accomplish this improvement in men's lives. Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges.

I could not find anywhere in the source that rejects gender as a social construct. All I was able to find was that the pro-feminist men's movement rejected sex role theory while the Men's Rights Movement did not. I haven't looked at the other sources and will take it on good faith that they are supportive of the statement as well, given that the Messner source clearly covers 2/3 of the statement. While Messner is extremely critical of the views and beliefs of the Men's Rights Movement, the introductory section of this Wikipedia article is presenting an overview of the beliefs, theory and views of the Men's Rights Movement, not claims about the validity of those views. There is no modification to the tone or intent of the source when stating the beliefs that Messner enumerates. Ismarc (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ismarc, the source I recently added verifies the mrm's stance on gender as a social construct.

I would ask that both kaldari and carpfish actually read the sources in question before making baseless accusations. It would help if you went to the actual pages I suggested rather than to pages of your own choosing.

I would like to point out that the majority of the content in my edit was there before I made it. Meaning, this was primarily a rewording of issues already listed previously. Issues I did not originally add.

It would do you good to take a moment for both of you to review WP:CIV and WP:GOODFAITH. Comments like "I feel as if I have slipped into an alternative parallel universe with what is going on in our article and on this discussion page. " and "What are we going to do so that our two very different universes can be joined as one?" are obnoxious and unproductive. You have already been warned once about obnoxious behavior carptrash. Moreover, it is completely out of line if you aren't going to read the whole source. Without reading this source you are in no position to judge whether "interpretations" are accurate or not.

On page 271 he describes men's rights organizations as "antipatriarchical."

on page 255

"golderberg directly asserted that male privilege is a myth"

On page 266.

"men's lower life span, health problems, military conscription, and divorce and custody laws were used as evidence of men's oppression"

"Men's rights advocates were claiming that men are the true victims of prostituion, pornography, dating rituals, sexist media conventions, divorce settlements, false rape accusations, sexual harrassment, and even domestic violence"

on page 270

"Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges. " Yhwhsks (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to correct a small part of your above statement, in the version I have access to and linked, the Goldberg quote appears on page 265, 3rd paragraph, not on page 255. And for the source not covering the gender as a social construct, I merely wanted to be crystal clear about what I saw as covered within Messner vs. not. I didn't want to end up appearing to speak to something I wasn't. Ismarc (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll stick with my alternative universe theory (sorry if this is offensive and obnoxious to you),but on second thought, perhaps Alice in Wonderland would be better, because I see nothing about "golderberg directly asserted that male privilege is a myth" on p255, Gender & Society. So, ? Carptrash (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read the entire source carptrash before disputing its content any further.Yhwhsks (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide page numbers to reference your edits. That is how it works. You say something is on page 255 then it is supposed to be there. If I say that the concept of men's rights begins in the Bible I don't expect you to read the whole book, I am supposed to tell you, as they say, book, chapter and verse. Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than the Goldberg assertion, which appears on page 265, rather than 255, is there any content that you still believe to be unsupported by the sources provided? At this point, I'm very familiar with the Messner sources and have it fresh in my mind, which is the only reason I weighed in on this discussion. I've been carefully reading through and studying the Messner works for the past couple of days as I've been familiarizing myself with as much of the sources as possible to start working on revamping the "Relation to Feminism" section to clearly define and source what the Men's Rights Movement believes, including its relation to feminism and then criticisms of the movement (with the goal of then having coverage of each issue clearly define what the Men's Rights Movement claims and then criticisms of that claim) giving proper weight to perspectives based on what's been published about the Men's Rights Movement. If you have been unable to find any of the quotes that have been extracted and placed here, could you either check against the JSTOR version I linked (if you have JSTOR access), or link to the version you've been using (if digital) or the printing run/ISBN (if hardcopy) so the discrepancies can be reconciled? The only discrepancy I've seen so far has been Yhwhsks having some references to page 255 when it's content that is on page 265 of what I've been studying. Ismarc (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did accidentally say that the goldberg quote was on 255. This was a typo. However, when I first suggested pages, I said 266 and 267 to start with. If carptrash had read that page she would have already seen that quote. If she had looked for the quotes I correctly identified on page 266, she would have seen that quote. If she had read the entire article like I suggested after that, she would have seen the qoute. That she continues having a problem suggests she is not attempting to read the source. Since this information is quite evident, this conversation only serves to create undue disruption to this talk page. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A slight tangent, but I am glad that my attempts to get in touch with my feminine side have been so successful. You ought to try it sometime. Carptrash (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't adding anything to the conversation. We also don't need to know what you do when your alone in the bathroom. In addition, please keep your sexual harassment off of this page. I have no desire to touch your feminine side. There is no telling where that has been. Yhwhsks (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Parental Leave

The Current Parental Leave section is not linked to the Men's Rights Movement by Sources. The only source used is about parental leave, but has not comments regarding the MRM. Including this material on this page is WP:OR. While I'm sure that parental leave is of some concern to some in the MRM, we need a source either pointing out the MRM's opinion on parental leave. As it is the current content should be removed from the Parental Leave section since it doesn't pertain to the MRM. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't mention the men's rights movement which means that the section is WP:SYNTH and needs to go. I see that your changes were reverted with the edit summary stating "Please discuss before deleting whole sections". This is odd considering that you did just that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Guys, and thank you for taking an interest in improving this article. I totally agree with the fact that this section is woefully under developed and something needs to be done. However, where we begin to disagree is on what our tasks as editors are. Rather than delete a section that is pretty clearly a concern to the MRM because the current sources aren't what they could be, we should work to find better and more specific sources. To help you with your editing I have done a ten minute google search to find something we can start working with. First is the page Fathers' Rights Movement. This page likely can help us begin pulling in some better sources. Here is a news article from msnbc that specifically lists parental leave as an MRM issue. [19]. In addition, here is the website of a men's rights organisation which lists studies to support its claims on parental leave. [20]. Again, I appreciate you taking an interest in this section and look forward to your suggestions on how the writing can be improved and provided with better references in addition to the ones above. I will try to help rewriting this section as well including the sources I have just listed. I am very busy, so I really do appreciate if you would look through these sources and help integrate them into the relevant sectionYhwhsks (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference indeed doesn't seem to mention the men's rights movement, and I would agree with removing it unless someone else can point to the section where it is discussed.

Unsourced sections and original research should be removed. If reliable sources make a connection between the men's rights movements and parental leave, it can be replaced. Sections and sources remain because their content can be verified in reliable sources, not because editors think they are appropriate.

Partisan websites are not, in my opinion, sufficiently reliable to be used for much beyond the beliefs of the specific organizations, and I would argue against their inclusion unless they could be contextualized by reliable, independent sources.. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a page about the opinions and positions of the men's rights movement, the mensright.com source is appropriate for this page. It is after all an authoritative source on its own positions on various issues. It is these positions that this page is meant to convey. I do not mind identifying the originator of the source in the commentary. Yhwhsks (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know it is representative? How do you know it summarizes the MRM accurately? How do you know it's meaningful? You are not listening. Read the policies and guidelines I cite - reliability matters, not whether you agree with the the opinions or think they are representative. Sources are reliable, not "appropriate" or "authoritative". Certainly it's not reliable the same way a scholarly source is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to begin using Template:Rp for citations

Given the confusion on where a particular source supports a particular statement here, I suggest we begin using Template:Rp to indicate page numbers when referencing a source multiple times. This will result in some visual clutter, but I think it'd be better than having the same source multiple times in the footnotes section given the number of entries in footnotes already and the fact that a large number of them are used 2+ times. Ismarc (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If by " confusion" you mean looking for references where they are claimed to be but not showing up, then anything that helps is a good thing. I was not familiar with the process or template that you've provided us with, it looks as if it could be very useful, so thank you. Carptrash (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Some users have a lot of trouble correctly reading the comments of other editors, and find it nearly impossible to actually read sources. This might help those with limited ability to read. We should definitely take this horse to water. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My revert of SPLC addition

The recent addition stating that the SPLC called the MRM a 'misogynistic' movement doesn't appear to be supported by the provided links. The first starts with the qualifier of 'Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims...', so this is not the movement as a whole. The second link is speaking specifically of the 'man-o-sphere', not the MRM. Arkon (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The second link was explicitly about the MRM, the "misogynist" in question was a called a leader of the movement (not a member of the man-o-sphere). It says that only "some" of the men in the movement have legitimate grievances. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading through it, the initial section covers an individual's actions, then coverage in general of websites, some linked to the Men's Rights Movement, some not, then finally coverage of the Men's Rights Movement. Through reading both, it's hard to separate out when they're talking about the Men's Rights Movement as a whole from the behavior of its members/individuals associated with the Men's Rights Movement. However, I'm inclined to say that the links can be used to support the statements. However, I would disagree that the SPLC labeling the Men's Rights Movement misogynistic coverage should be in the initial overview blob (typically a summary of the content of the article). The overall organization of the page is lacking, but for the time being I could see inclusion at the end of the History section with something like "In 2012 the Southern Poverty Laws Center..." to indicate that it's 'recent' history. It can then be move to the most appropriate section once the organization of the article is improved. Ismarc (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the length of that article and the extent of its commentary, it seems odd to single out the fact that they view the MRM as misogynistic to be included. I don't really support that addition, but it is in the source. If it is included as Ismarc suggests then it probably fits relevant guidelines. However, I disagree with its placement in the history section as it is not actually part of the history of the MRM and it is not actually an issue that concerns the MRM. It is more of an outside reaction to the MRM. The section that could come closest to accommodating it is the relation to feminist section. However, I don't believe SPLC is explicitly feminist so that isn't the best place either. Perhaps there should be a new section like "public reaction" or something. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC has never taken the position that the MRA is a misogynistic movement. Arthur Golwag did in an opinion piece on their site. They have since distanced themselves from the article and Golwag has since moderated his words through another article on their site. Golwag's opinion in isolation is not a significant opinion and would violate WP:UNDUE. Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 21:49, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, please provide the source that indicates the SPLC has distanced themselves from this article. Then we can replace the text, and note that they have distanced themselves subsequently from their previous stance. Sources and statements they verify are not removed based on your word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert by Ismarc

I apologize if I'm bringing up something that was discussed and resolved. Ismarc rewrote a sentence supported by the two sources given and attributed it to Rhys H. Williams (sociologist). Apart from the fact that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is for dealing with biased sources (there is no evidence that Williams belongs in that category), Ismarc ignored the Michael Messner source which states: "Although men's rights organizations have a broad agenda of change, the issue of fathers' rights has been their most successful rallying point... Fathers' rights discourse has attempted, with some success, to co-opt the liberal feminist rhetoric of gender "equality" and "rights" to forge a campaign to forge a campaign that aims to alter laws related to divorce and child custody."

Williams states: "Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone: The initial claims of fathers' rights groups... portrayed their definitions of the problem as reflecting a societal consensus and their proposed solution as benefitting the entire public, rather than as political positions with distinct constituencies. In the case of the fathers' groups, the use of gender-neutral language and a rhetoric of rights allowed them to claim that they were the ones fighting against sexism and promoting true gender equality (ColtraneandHickman1992:416)."

The original phrasing was based on the sources. Attributing the POV to Williams is unnecessary because he is not a biased source and ignoring Messner makes no sense. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the content should reflect the sources and that Williams is not a special case, which is what prompted the discussion initially (co-opted vs. adopted carry different connotations). The entire section needs restructured and redone and, not being familiar with the topic, I've been studying the sources in preparation. Using a quotation was suggested in the meantime so there didn't need to be a continued discussion about whether the sentence reflected the source. If you would like to reword those two sentences to reflect the tone and intent of the relevant portions of the sources, it would be appreciated so long as each time we change that section, we're improving compared to all previous states. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to address the fact that due to the limitations of what writing can convey, there is a problem for the lay reader who sees quote around "rights" etc. They, like us, will perceive that this was the result of an editor rather than the source. I think this can be resolved if directly quote most of those sentences, then replace the " with '. Unfortunately, because of the confusion that could be caused by having the quotes around single words, I don't think it is an option to leave it as is. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Co-opt" is used by Messner. "Adopt" is used by nobody under discussion. The word "adopt" can mean borrow the style of another with an attitude of respect to the source, while "co-opt" means take the style of another without respecting them. With the antagonistic foundation of MRM against feminism, the word "co-opt" is the right one. The MRM does not respect feminism for its rhetoric which they took for its effectiveness. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Adopt is used by the Williams source, in the sentences immediately preceding what was quoted above

Men's Rights groups (with names such as "Dads Against Discrimination" or "Fathers for Equal Rights") have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement (see Williams and Williams forthcoming) to argue that custody decisions regarding children should be based on impersonal criteria such as income rather than any preference toward maternal care

which is where the discussion started that led to the use of a direct quote instead. Ismarc (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Messner and Williams make a very similar point: The only difference is that Messner is a bit more specific ("co-opt the liberal feminist rhetoric of gender "equality" and "rights"") whereas Williams is more general in his description ("have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement"). You have ignored the Messner source and attributed the position to Williams although Messner is still cited as a reference. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The reader of this text will not be able to tell what the conotation of those quotation marks are meant to be if you just add them around one word. Technically, to properly quote this you would need "'rights'" which is just weird. If you must have this, then a fuller quotation is necessary as ismarc has pointed out. Yhwhsks (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

At the time I made the change, I was ignorant of the full content of Messner's work, while I had studied the first section in detail, I had only done a single read through of the rest of the article. Now that I've had time to finish studying the Messner work in detail, a quote from Messner (with Williams supporting) would have been much more appropriate. WLU modified the wording here and I'm of the opinion that this better supports all related sources than a direct quote from either (though I would prefer a fully neutral wording of how they acquired the feminist rhetoric given sources have such polarized language on it). I'm supportive of the current language of the article, so I'm hopeful we've reached a resolution you find appropriate as well. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you did not read or complete reading Messner's article before you changed the sentence that was based on that source. WLU's phrasing is appropriate, yes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A "neutral" wording is one that faithfully reflects the source. People think "neutral" means "fair", or "according to the subject of the page". It does not. Please read WP:NPOV. "Neutral" on wikipedia means "proportionate to the views found in reliable sources on the subject". People think that wikipedia is like the news, with false balance and whatnot. It is not. We don't pretend the antivaccination movement has a point, we don't carefully list claims by birthers (except to refute them) and we don't pretend cold fusion has potential. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is the exact manner in which I mean "neutral". Messner uses the term co-opt to describe the usage of feminist rhetoric (with specific items being co-opted), Williams uses the term adopt but is not specific about what is being adopted of the feminist rhetoric. The current line uses the "friendlier" term adopt from Williams with the specificity of Messner. When I say I would prefer a fully neutral wording, I mean that I would like to see something that fully captures the tone and intent of all sources, something like "Men's rights activists have adopted much of the feminist rhetoric, co-opting "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing issues, such as custody, as a matter of basic civil rights." This is representative of Williams, Messner and Williams(2), I don't have access to Coltrane yet to verify that the phrasing supports that source as well. I've been reluctant to directly suggest a change to the current wording because of how strongly people seem to feel about the particular phrase when there are larger structural issues to work on in the article (which I am slowly progressing on as I study the plethora of sources already used in the article). Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Yhwhsks

To name just one example: [21]

Yhwhsks has introduced this clearly unreliable source which mentions "men's rights" exactly once: "Now, among men, I would say, broadly speaking, the conservative approaches to masculinity, particularly men's rights' activists and so on, there is the sense of anger or a sense of grievance." He has rewritten the lead based on that source and made claims which aren't supported.

Now he has changed content which is properly cited und supported by two sources, thus misrepresenting the Newton and Messner sources. He then added the unreliable source which doesn't support his claims.

In addition to that, he changed another sentence so that the text no longer matches the source. What the source says is: "The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men’s rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes." Yhwhsks wrote that, according to the source, feminists have a "dogmatic belief in patriarchy theory and male institutional power". How is that supported by the source?

I can see that Yhwhsks is a new editor with less than 50 contributions. Can one of the two administrators in charge of enforcing the terms of the community probation take a look at his behavior? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any value in using a tangential source to make a foundational statement about MRM. Yhwhsks should not have rewritten the lead section based on the www.malestudies.org transcript. Furthermore, we should never allow a misrepresentation of a source. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I find this whole section distasteful and condescending. The worth of an edit is independent of the editor or the number of previous edits he/she has made. If you have problems with any particular edit Yhwhsks has made then discuss it specifically on this page. Forming a section solely to detail your personal distaste of Yhwhsks' edits is unseemly and creates a hostile editing environment. CSDarrow (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sonicyou. Thank you for noticing me. I am flattered by your attention. First I would like you to review wp:goodfaith. I would appreciate if you would assume good faith on my part. I promise that at no point was I trying to give an inaccurate description of what the men's rights movement stands for and believes. In fact, I can promise you that nothing would make me happier than for people to have the best and most accurate understanding of the MRM as they can. Please understand that I have a great dedication to the truth and wish nothing more than for this article to be the highest quality that it can. As such I am more than willing to discuss your issues with this edit. I thank you quite fully that you have not engaged in edit warring and have sought to discuss the issue in question.

As for your first complaint, the male's studies consortium is essentially synonymous with the MRM. For example Here are three articles that discuss the head of the male studies consortium, Dr. Stephans, including mensrights.com. Clearly this man is an inspiration and leader in the mrm. He is quite famous and regularly discussed in news outlets. Work that he authorizes and puts his name to is clearly a reliable source for positions taken by the MRM. His work represents the MRM in many ways and he is often mentioned in the same sentence as the MRM.

[22], [23], [24]

For your second point, please specify exactly what text you have a problem with. I can not address this without more specific information.

That patriarchy theory is a dogma is essentially common knowledge. This is sort of like criticizing me for using grammar. In any event, I can provide several sources that use dogma in the description of patriarchy. Two of which are feminist in origin, while the third is MRM. If you need to have the MRM source included then this or one of countless others can be included. Here are the sources:

[25]

[26] (this is a voice for men link. I want to comment that the fact that this website has been labeled spam is disgusting. And it demonstrates the feminist bias of wikipedia.)

Kate millet, sexual politics pg 114 [27]

Since dogma is bound up in the very definition, even the very existential being of patriarchy theory, I don't necessarily think a source is required on this point. However, if you insist one of the three above could be selected. Or if this is not satisfying to you, we should look for an additional one.

As a closing statement, I would like to point out that what will make this article better is not disagreements about what current sources say or do not say (though this is quite valuable in and of itself), but rather bringing this article to a state that it accurately represents and conveys the heart and soul of the MRM. The current sources listed fail to make this ideal a reality as has been pointed out on several occasions. As editors, this is what we should be trying to rectify. Knowing the positions and beliefs of the MRM is relatively easy. You can go to any related blog or website, /r/mensrights for example, and gain an understanding of the consensus towards various issues that the mrm has reached. However, like herding cats, getting sources that is acceptable to wikipedia is more difficult than talking to your average MRA. However, our goal should not be so much to dispute and delete information, but rather to find the additional sources which verify what we already know about the MRM. So in the future, I would ask that you pursue a constructive and productive stance towards this article. Our first question is "does this statement accurately represent what I know about the MRM?" If not, then it may not belong in this article. If yes, then our next question is "does this source verify this view?" Sometimes we will find that a source does not! Oh no. What should be done at this point? The answer is not delete delete delete. After all we have a good feel for the positions of the MRM and we know the statement is consistent. No, our answer is not to delete but to build. We need to find more sources, like I have done, that can improve the quality of this article, that accurately represent the MRM.

Thank you for comment CS darrow. I concur. Since I have been here, there has been a great deal of hostility that has centered around the use of logical fallacies.Yhwhsks (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was being quite clear: The source you provided does not support your claims. "Men's rights" is mentioned once ("men's rights' activists and so on, there is the sense of anger or a sense of grievance"), "patriarchy" isn't mentioned at all. That the male's studies consortium is "essentially synonymous with the MRM" is an unsourced assertion. On top of that, the source is unreliable. More importantly, you changed sourced content so that the text no longer matches the academic sources.

You are a very new editor and I would ask that you familiarize yourself with basic rules such as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:Reliable sources. I believe you have displayed a profound misunderstanding of our sourcing policies. Your attempts to substantiate your addition that "patriarchy theory is a dogma" is a textbook example. You know that the academic sources in the article say nothing of this, not even the unreliable source you provided. Despite this you wrote something about "dogmatic belief in patriarchy theory and male institutional power", thus misrepresenting the sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yhwhsks, I would not even respond to the above. If Sonicyouth has any problems with your edits he/she should address them individually in a civilised manner. CSDarrow (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I will take your advice CSDarrow. Sonicyouth, If you wish to discuss any of my edits, create a separate section and address the content of the edit only. If you can't follow wp:civ and are going to use ad hominems, I am not obligated to discuss anything with you.Yhwhsks (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Good faith" means the assumption you are not a vandal, that your intention is to improve rather than worsen the page. WP:AGF does not mean poor quality edits or sources should be tolerated. The transcript appears to be a talk given and hosted by a men's rights organization, which does not appear sufficiently reliable to be included in the page (as are many of the presented sources). Wikipedia is about what can be verified, not what is true. Whether the patriarchy is described as dogma is irrelevant to this page unless it is within the context of the men's rights movement. Any text that is not sourced can be removed by any editor and it is up to the replacing editor to find an appropriately reliable and specific source, per WP:PROVEIT. This is to avoid wikipedia being used as a publisher of original research or soapbox to promote an idea.

If the page does not adequately represent the MRM, it is incumbent on editors to present reliable sources to update the page, not mere opinion. Blogs and websites generally are not considered reliable for these purposes, certainly not independent enough to portray anything but the opinion of the website or author (who generally would not be considered adequately notable to merit noting their opinions).

Sonicyouth86's statements were perfectly civil, he politely explained why your edits were inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not have any evidence that I have vandalized the page. I would appreciate if you did not make baseless accusations. Specifically most of my edits have involved neutral reorganization. I don't believe you have been reading the same comments that I have WLU. I am not the only one who has identified Sonicyouth as being inappropriate. In fact this section is highly inappropriate and sonicyouth has regularly engaged in ad hominem.

Please explain how a talk given by a men's rights organization is not a reliable source given the context of this page. This page is meant to convey the positions and opinions of the MRM. I can not imagine a more reliable source than a talk given at a conference hosted by the MRM. This source meets both verified, not what is true and it meets wp:reliable when you consider the context of the purpose of this page.Yhwhsks (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said you had vandalized the page.

How are Sonicyouth's comments inappropriate, what policy or guideline has he broken? Pointing out that new accounts are new is not against any rule.

Please read WP:RS. That's a webpage. What scholarship, oversight and independent fact checking is present? What reputation for accuracy does malestudies.org have? How does it compare to the genuinely scholarly sources that are used throughout the page? Is it the kind of "high-quality mainstream publication" that can be used in articles about scholarly topics? Is it a news organization? You can always bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like. It's at best a representation of one men's rights organization, not all men's rights organizations, at a single conference. So really, it's one speaker's opinions. And not a scholarly conference, an advocacy conference. Not reliable in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "I am not obligated to discuss anything with you". There is no need to reply, really, as it is patently obvious that the reference you provided a) doesn't support your claims, b) probably doesn't meet our reliability standards, and, more importantly, c) was used to change reliably sourced content so that it now appears as if Messner and Newton (p. 190) say something about "gender as a social construct" (just one example) in connection with the MRM when in fact they don't. The original wording "Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on perceived disadvantages of men and what they saw as evidence of the oppression of men" was supported by both the Messner and Newton sources. You changed it so that there is a discrepancy between text and sources. This is unhelpful as is the removal of reliable sources without prior discussion (e.g., [28] note the edit summary that you deleted one reference although you deleted two, [29] note the incorrect edit summaty that Messner doesn't mention domestic violence, [30] note the edit summary that it's the same source although it isn't and covert deletion of third source), the WP:Coatrack sentences based on exceptionally poor sources, and the reinsertion of WP:SYNTH. Not to mention the attempts at rewording referenced content in a way that marginalizes the position advanced by academic sources. -Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I came up with a solution to the problem of Jerusalem and its role in the problems of the Middle East that I think might work in this article. The solution was give everyone in Jerusalem a six month warning and then drop an atomic bomb on the city. I feel that this might be what needs to happen here. Nuke the whole article and then build it back sentence by sentence, reference by reference. In Jerusalem, of course, you'd have to wait a millennium or two before rebuilding, but here we could start right away. Carptrash (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why can't someone draw attention to carptrashes abuse of wikipedia and get her banned from this page? Yhwhsks (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good lord, don't you think that your comment might be a tad bit offensive? 74.129.116.98 (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it very curious, and very telling, that at least twice now Yhwhsks has assumed that editors who disagree with his/her posts are female. Incorrectly, as it happens. Please note, Yhwhsks, this encyclopedia and this page are not the place for a battleground of the genders, and making assumptions about this is distinctly unhelpful to collegial editing. Slp1 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't turn me in for being uncivil, but, Slp1, that's a "no-brainer" - it's happened to me too. At a school yard level the three meanest slurs a guy can say to another guy is (1) "You throw like a girl" (2) you run like a girl & (3) You ARE a girl." Flash back to all the bootcamp movies you've seen where the drill sargent is shouting "COME ON GIRLS!" Some editors around here feel that calling someone a female is the worst possible insult to them (it's likely an MRM thing too), not realizing that many guys don't mind and in fact are somewhat flattered by it. Welcome to the wikipedia playground, where, boys will be boys. Carptrash (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, even if I may agree with you on certain positions regarding sources, summary and the rules, I don't agree with you including tangential and inflammatory comments that address no substantive points. Please keep it civil and on point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Any editors familiar with "The Fathers' Rights Movement" by Doyle?

Citation is: Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter. Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8 (link available 61–62 here)

This citation is in the main article, and as I slowly progress through the sources, I hit this one and through a light reading of it, I only saw reference to the Men's Rights Movement in a small section on page 61 and a mention under the Fathers' Rights Movement section on page 62. However, the Fathers Rights Movement section indicates that they are almost indistinguishable. Is the common opinion that the entire work relating to the Fathers' Rights Movement considered related to the Men's Rights Movement (because of the association drawn under the Father's Rights Movement description) or is it considered specific to the Fathers' Rights Movement? I found it curious because it's used in only one location, for a single statement, where there are multiple other sources that covers it extensively. Ismarc (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If by asking "Is the common opinion", you are asking the editors here what they feel, my reading is that the author views Fathers' Rights as being a subset of the Mens' Rights movement and as such statements about Fathers can be applied to Men when the issue at hand is fatherhood. Thank you for the link to the reference. Carptrash (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that in the source that you posted, under the Men's Rights Movement heading, it states "Here men seek to bolster Patriarchy in society, and seek to hold on to men's advanced position" while out article states that men reject the concept of patriarchy. Carptrash (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is what I meant, and I had a similar feeling about it after reading through, which is why I was asking here. I was hoping that there were some folks who were extremely familiar with the work that could weigh in, I imagine that this could become a contentious issue if it was the only source for a particular section. Ismarc (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The essay is from an explicitly Feminist perspective with the hypothesis that "fathers rights movements seek at all times to bolster the patriarchy, not challenge them" (see Methodology, page 58). In studying sources so far, this seems to be a common theme of works on the Men's Rights Movement written from a Feminist perspective, but is uncommon in works from a non-feminist perspective. Ismarc (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not surprising since one of the foundations of the Mens Rights Movement, as we currently have it, seems to be a denial that the patriarchy exists. One of the details that needs to be addressed if this article is going to survive. Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"The patriarchy," as it is used by radical feminist theorists, is a hackneyed obscurantist theoretical construct that is often used to reify some underlying paranoid, conspiratorial and victimologist worldviews. MRM writers and activists do not accept the term as it is defined by feminists. This is one of the details that needs to be addressed in this article. This article isn't titled "The MRM as defined by feminists," although that is what much of the article amounts to in its current form. This needs to be acknowledged if this article is going to survive. Memills (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as red link editors with obvious agendas keep showing up the article probably will not survive. But we will see. Perhaps the reason (one of many possibilities, I am sure) that so many feminist sources are used in the article is that it is the MRM sources that keep appearing as "hackneyed, obscurantist, paranoid, conspiratorial and victimologist"? Isn't the point of the MRM movement that men are victims? And is this not the result of a feminist conspiracy? If the cap fits, dude, wear it. Carptrash (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Many MRM activits, particularly Warren Farrell, go out of their way to point out that they accept that there are areas where women are oppressed, discriminated against, feel powerlessness and are victimized. MRM activists simply point out that there are also areas where men too are subject to unfair treatment, and where they too feel powerlessness. If we drop the "feminist" and "masculinist" conceptions of tunnel vision over-generalizations that only one sex bleeds (under the "patriarchy"), the legitimacy and need for a MRM is clear.

And if we are concerned about the suffering of all humans, then we can all embrace the label of "humanist."

Heck, throw in concerns about non-human animal suffering and, to coin a term, we become "sentientists." But I leave that for another day... Memills (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article, not to engage in some kind of "my oppression is bigger than yours" pissing contest? Reyk _YO! 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been warned (again) about not respecting new editors, or more correctly, for responding to the editors and not the edits. In chess players are advised to "play the board, not the opponent." Not that there are opponents here, but I will proceed accordingly and wait for my interlibrary loan books to arrive. Then, in the words of that great man, Douglas McArthur, "I shall return."

• I was talking to all involved, not just to you. Actually, these discussions have been unusually civil and and productive when compared to other discussions of gender politics I've seen on the net. I think if we keep it that way we'll end up with a very respectable article. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not feel singled out, and am content to reap what I have sown. When the cap fits me, I wear it. Some of these guys (no mention of link color) are probably arriving from a website linked to somewhere above, where Kevin, a respected, unbiased (if anything I felt he leaned towards the guys) wikipedia editor gets totally trashed for what he has posted here. Perhaps I will take what I am thinking and go post it there. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Memills is correct. Feminist views of the MRM paint a very one sided picture and their views shouldn't be presented without being attributed. This is one of the reasons the "relation to feminism" section was created. Views and statements from feminists need to be moved here, while more NPOV and men's rights views can make up the rest of the article. This is the MRM page after all Yhwhsks (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No Yhwhsks that is absolutely wrong. Segregating view points is 100% opposite to what NPOV is. I already pointed out to another editor this common misunderstanding of NPOV. Wikipedia records all views regardless of their POV. Sources don't need to neutral our record of them does. Sectioning one set of views off into a section 'for them' is not appropriate and in fact contravenes WP:NPOV. A relation to feminism section is acceptable and is very different from a section for the "Views and statements from feminists"--Cailil ^talk 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the section of NPOV is WP:STRUCTURE. We don't ghettoize criticism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with WLU and Cailil that this article will not be segregating "feminist criticism" (or similar) in a section by itself. This is a problem that many editors who critique current scholarship have faced here on Wikipedia. But the fact is that on articles such as Homeopathy, 9/11, The holocaust, AIDS, Shakespeare authorship question, Cold fusion etc we do not discount or marginalize mainstream scholarship just because some activists and editors feel that it is biased and wrong. We are an encyclopedia, summarizing the current views of the highest quality sources. If these views are wrong then the onus is on academics, researchers etc to prove the mainstream views incorrect by publishing their findings in high quality journals. Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

To return to Ismarc's original question: one of the key points to discuss is whether the fathers' rights movement is a subset of the men's rights movement (and therefore material about them useable here) or whether it should be considered a separate movement. I think several editors in the past (including myself) have operated on the former assumption, and I do believe that there are reliable sources for this.. unfortunately, I am on the road, with crappy internet and can't locate the citation for now. But I think on reflection despite this it is better to be super clean and precise and only use references that refer to the men's rights movements. This is certainly the conclusion that several of us reached in a previous discussion (which I can't find presently!). That's not to say that the Doyle article cannot be used, but only for stuff explicitly referring to the men's rights movement (rather than the FRM). Just to say that if we go this route it means that a bunch of other citations which specifically refer to the FRM in the article will need to be replaced/removed. However, I think this is to be preferred per WP:V on this, a very contentious article. Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring (2)

"Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement" has been edited in and out of the article 3 times (6 total reverts, 3 for each side) since this edit on March 9th. I see some discussion above, but if I see anymore reverts on this content, I will be sanctioning editors.--v/r - TP 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are obvious problems with the expression of an opinion as a fact and the coatracking of a weasel example in these sentences. These issues were close to resolution till a new crew of editors decided to ignore the previous discussion and indiscriminately revert. My points are there to read and clearly pertinent to the text, yet Sonicyouth et al plow ahead indiscrimately. CSDarrow (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That "these issues were close to resolution" is a pretty liberal (ohhh . . bad word) interpretation of what is going on here. In my view, the "new crew of editors" appeared because the article was in total disarray and needed/needs serious attention. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll put this plainly and clearly: I just don't care about the specifics of the article and what is supposedly true and what source says what. Unless you can find an exception under WP:EW, of which there are few, do not edit war. The 'obvious problems' just don't matter. Discussion first, consensus second, change third.--v/r - TP 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are three sources to verify this statement. Are all reliable? Are they being mis-quoted or summarized? Are there any reliable sources contradicting these points? Where are the weasel words like "some scholars think..." or "many people know..."? How is this a coatrack when it is clearly discussing the mens' rights movement? A coatrack is when a page is used to slyly criticize something not of the page; for instance, "The mens' rights movement is committed to the patriarchy, which Abraham established and we all know Abraham tried to kill his son." Since editor opinion is not adequate to overturn the opinions of sources, what source-based objections do the other editors have? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with those sentences is that they heavily imply that the rhetoric used by Men's Rights Activists is only rhetoric. The way this sentence is written "The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest" gives the strong implication that this argument from the MRM is only there to deflect the criticism, not that the argument has any merit of it's own. This pushes the POV that the MRM's argument is invalid. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a personal war against pronouns, so would like you (Kyohyi) to point out just which "those sentences" are. Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kyohyi, those weren't the questions I asked. Are the sources accurately summarized? Are there sources that rebut these points? Your opinion isn't adequate to discard, refute or criticize these sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly with sources are you looking for? I just ordered three, Messner, Newton & Wishard via intelibrary loan from my local library. it will take a week or two to get them, if ever, some stuff can't be ILLed, but if they do arrive, well then you get to decide if I am trustworthy to answer your query. Now let's see what Kyohyi has to say. Carptrash (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please also note, Kyohyi, that Coltrane & Hickman make a similar point when they describe the "rights" rhetoric as a "language of entitlement". They add that "While often veiled by a rhetoric of children's needs and gender neutrality, the more conservative men's right groups openly supported a return to patriarchal family relations." They cite quite a few examples. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the lack of clarity for the previous post. I had posted part of my argument higher on the page. The argument I am making has nothing to do with Verifiability, Reliable sources. The point I was trying to make was that the way the content is structured it gives the implication that the Men's Rights Movement are just "Rhetoric", as in no logical basis behind them. This pushes a point of view that is negative of the Men's Rights Movement, and should not be stated in Wikipedia's Voice. However, if the information is re-written to be purely descriptive. As in "The Men's Rights Movement frames their arguments for rights in a similar fashion to the feminist movement." we don't have the issue of pushing a point of view. I'm not trying to refute, or discard these sources, however we need to include this information in a way that is impartially written. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CSdarrow is right. This has been extensively discussed. This citation should either be removed or included in its entirety as an opinion of the person who wrote it. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CSdarrow is not right, when four reliable sources converge on this opinion, and there are no reliable sources that disagree, it's pretty much presented as fact and that is seen as an impartial statement. The fact that this portrays the MRM negatively is not a problem - it appears that the scholarly consensus views the MRM quite dimly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kyohyi made a very good suggestion. This statement is consistent with the source. The other wording with the scare quotes simply can't be oonveyed in a non-biased manor. Yhwhsks (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure about "in a similar fashion to the feminist movement." Is it not time for the MRM boys to stand on their own and not always be something related to or reacting against the feminist movement? Perhaps it is time to agree that the problem in finding good references for the MRM is because it is really the flat earth theory of our times. An interesting idea to be sure, but not really supportable. Carptrash (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The argument I am making has nothing to do with Verifiability, Reliable sources." Yes, and this is the problem. Your edit has nothing to do with these core content policies, but wikipedia pages are based on them. The fact that the page portrays the MRM negatively is not a problem, but if the sources were misleadingly summarized, it would be. If the sources are reliable and accurately summarized, then the discussion about those sources ends. You are free to locate and integrate sources that indicate they are inaccurate, or that opinions have changed. If you can't, if all you have to provide is your own opinion that the sources are wrong, we're pretty much done here. We don't write "impartially", we write "neutrally", which means representing things in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. If you can't accept this, you should not try to edit wikipedia. The sources appear to be quite explicit that the adoption is of rhetoric, so I think we're about done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No the problem is that you are attempting to side step NPOV through the use of Verifiability. I am disputing how the information is shown in the article, not that the information should or should not be in the article. The way the statements are written they assert multiple things.

1. The way the Men's Rights movement frames their arguments.

2. The Men's Rights movement arguments are pure rhetoric. E.G. no basis in reality

3. The Men's Rights movement's arguments are only there for self interest.

The first part could be a neutral description of their arguments, the other two are POV. What's more, they are POV that disparages the Men's Rights Movement, and is clearly in violation of NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The sentence accurately summarises the views of multiple reliable sources and is written in such a way to respect due weight. WP does not require that the fringe views of a minority are represented in every sentence. Especially when not evidenced. Paintedxbird (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is what reliable sources say about the subject. Uncontested factual assertions made by reliable sources are stated in Wikipedia's voice. Can you present sources which contradict Williams (1995), Williams & Williams (1995), Messner (1998) and Coltrane & Hickman (1992)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New "Discrimination against the Men's Rights Movement" section

Discussed below

This section[31], it seems to me, lists a couple of incidents of protest against the MRM, but I'm not convinced these incidents are properly called "discrimination." It seems only one of the sources is available online, but that source did not mention the word "discrimination" so I'm concerned there might be some original research in the naming of the section. Is there any support for removing or renaming the section? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please propose a different name for this section. I couldn't think of anything better. Maybe "protests against the men's rights movement" or "conflict between the MRM and feminism"? The topic in this section seems a bit separate from philosophical differences with feminism immediately above it and should be separate. All three of these articles were in print newspapers. I just used the online sourcing since that is where I accessed itYhwhsks (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of the word discrimination in this section. I am open to any suggestions to what this section should be named. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to force the issue over something so trivial, but the actions of feminist protestors described in this section do fit the definition of discrimination and this is an accurate way to describe these actions. from dictionary.com:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Yhwhsks (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Thermidorian Reaction against the Men's Rights Movement has a nice scholarly sound to it, and it seems pretty appropriate. Carptrash (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Having to quote a dictionary to support an edit is usually an indication of a problematic edit. This discussion is now in two places, I suggest deferring to the below section rather than continuing this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The section just added to the

false rape ( or something) section was not really about that, so I created a section just for it, and in fact am considering moving it up into the lede section because it seems to me that it is the best description of the MRM so far, Brilliant. Carptrash (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section in question - the title was terrible, it was a single person's opinion, I couldn't find it in the google books I had, and there was no actual link to the MRM. It looked very much like a coatrack attempt to smear the MRM through the opinions of one activist. Much as pro-MRM editors are not permitted to remove critical sources on the basis of taste, those who find the MRM distasteful are equally guilty of violating the P&G if they ignore WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COAT to make it or its members look bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote was added by Yhwhsks. I doubt that his intention was to smear the MRM, and Warren Farrell isn't just some activist but I see your point. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I checked and it was Yhwhsks who added it, and as SonicYouth says, I doubt from their other edits that they thought there was anything prejudicial about it at all. It just shows the extraordinary disconnect that is going on here. Anyway, it is in Farrell, and in fact was reprinted basically in whole in his 2008 Oxford University Press book see here for a snippet view. I do think Farrell needs to be treated as a fairly authoritative source on the views of the men's rights movement, and quite suitable as a source for their views. I'd feel much more comfortable if claimed key viewpoints of the men's rights movement are supported by multiple citations reliable sources showing that this is indeed a topic of major concern for a significant portion at least. I'm on a very slow, and intermittent, connection at present, so can't easily look, but I'd be very surprised if these weren't out there. Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't see the relevance of the quote used to this page. "X author who happens to be a MRM scholar doesn't agree with 'no means no'" is not a meaningful inclusion on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. As written it was entirely unencyclopedic. But further searches in reliable sources on the topic may find that this is a common theme of the MRM's discourse, in which case I'm sure you'd agree something brief on the subject might be worth including. But at the moment it is certainly UNDUE, I would say. Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and per WP:PROVEIT it is incumbent upon the replacing editors to locate the missing reliable sources linking this specific point to the overall MRM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring

WLU is reverting edits and deleting sections without reading the sources provided for them. She also did not participate in the discussion on the name of the "conflict with feminism" section if she doesn't like its current description. All three sources provide in my edits were from print newspapers that heavily quoted the people involved. Meaning they are reliable and discuss the MRM. Three separate incidents are discussed in this section. More are likely to be added over time. Edits should not be deleted for ideological reasons.

Please discuss WLU's edit warring and inappropriate deletions. Fixed grammar mistake. Yhwhsks (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, I think WLU's edit[32] was appropriate for the reasons stated in the edit summary - a couple of small incidents, as described in the section are not notable enough to merit their own section. I think your reversion of WLU was the inappropriate edit-warring. Per the BRD cycle, especially for an article that's on probation, you were bold, you were reverted, you should have discussed instead of simply undoing the reversion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The one source that is available doesn't even expressly identify the protestors as feminists, nor does it identify the lecture they were protesting as being about the MRM - to quote directly from The Varsity: "Fiamengo’s lecture on “‘What’s Wrong with Women’s Studies?” examined what she identified as the problems with academic feminism and women’s and gender studies programs." Discussing problems of academic feminism is not necessarily related to the MRM. Given this, I really think there is some original research/synth going on to use this type of source to support a section purportedly about the conflict between feminism and MRM. I am, at this point very tempted to revert you like WLU did. Would there be consensus for removing the section in question? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, correct me of I'm wrong, the two sources do not identify Ms. Fiamingo as a men's rights activist and even if they did, WP:UNDUE would apply. This appears to be more of the same coatracking to make this article about feminism and women's studies and not about the men's rights movement. In addition to that, the summary of the sources seems a bit too creative and the inclusion of the blacklisted men's rights site is just plain wrong. I support the removal of the section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a she.

The sources (two at my count) are a free Canadian daily tabloid and the U of T student newspaper. These sources are not on par with the scholarly volumes used elsewhere. The edits also suggested that the protests and actions taken regarding two local talks were widespread and systematic. In addition, the sources themselves contained criticisms of the MRM that were not included. There was far too much one-sided detail for what were ultimately small, local events with no applicability in general. I've left a summary of "the U of T presentations were protested", and even that is excessive detail. To cobble the events described in these local newspapers to have some sort of relevance for the international men's rights movement is simply, flatly, wrong. I have essentially removed the text again, and think even the remaining text is excessive and poorly placed. The Metro source does identify Fiamengo, in a way, as part of the MRM, "[Fiamengo's] talk is part of the growing activity of “men’s issues” groups, more commonly known men’s rights activists, on Canadian campuses."

Put in terms of the P&G, the text I removed was WP:UNDUE weight on sources of dubiousreliability (for what they verified) that grossly extrapolated the events of a single location in a display of inappropriate original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

yes, I agree with this removal. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a newspaper. The section was extraordinarily clear WP:UNDUE in this context. I will also say that the information used from the sources was very selective. I note that some of the protesters were internet-stalked and harassed by someone with associated with avoiceformen and register-her. [33] If information about the protest is going to be fairly and neutrally included in such detail, then the whole story needs to be told, no? Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Metro article, the talk given by Jiamengo was about feminism:

The University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society is hosting a talk by a professor who will discuss why she believes feminism and women’s studies has created a “mean-spirited bias against men” in the humanities.

University of Ottawa English professor Janice Fiamengo is scheduled to speak on March 7. Her talk is part of the growing activity of “men’s issues” groups, more commonly known men’s rights activists, on Canadian campuses.

From varsity

A controversial speech critiquing feminist studies delivered by University of Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo

Fiamengo talk is about feminism, and she is identified as talking about men's rights activist. The appropriate thing to do here is 1) change the name of the section and discuss the most appropriate ame 2) add material yourself that you feel should be included from this source or elsewhere 3) these are print newspapers and meet quality standards so your complaint about this doesn't apply. Yhwhsks (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It would do you guys well to pay close attention to this section:

In another incident, feminist protesters repeatedly tore down A Voice for Men website posters at Arizona state University. Commenting on this action, Amelia Lewis Professor of Constitutional Law James Weinstien said "To stop the message because they (feminists) disagree with it is the antithesis of free speech." In addition, Feminist "censors could very easily get their message across without suppressing the others' free speech rights.

Yhwhsks (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted you again; it's clear you don't have consensus to keep adding it back for all the reasons enumerated in this section already. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Only revert edits made that are being disputed. The relation to feminism and the change to history are not part of this discussion Yhwhsks (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All your additions today were reverted, including the one in the section "Relation to feminism". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yhwhsks, everything I reverted, including the paragraph you restored, is being discussed here. The fact that you moved it from the "conflict" section to the "relation" section earlier doesn't change the fact that it's under discussion here and you didn't have consensus to restore it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this content has been added back again,[34] I just want to mention that I think it clearly WP:UNDUE to use a single incident to source a section on conflicts between feminism and the MRM, especially given that the sourcing is not the best - a student newspaper and a free commuter tabloid. The paragraph in the "relation to feminism" is also given undue weight, because it addresses the content of Prof Fiamenco's lecture, but cites sources that only address the contents in passing - they are articles about the protests against the lecture rather than being about the lecture itself. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the sources and accompanying sections. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph re: Fiamengo talk

I'm wondering if there's a consensus about the paragraph that was reinserted here[35]. I have reverted it once today and it has since been added back, so I'm not going to take it out again without discussion, but I still think it's a bit problematic. First of all, the paragraph is meant to be about a talk given at a university, but the cited articles don't really cover the contents of the talk in detail. They touch on it, but are more about the protests and other reactions on campus. Secondly, the quality of the sources is not great - one is a student newspaper and the other is a free daily commuter tabloid. Third, I'm concerned that it puts undue weight on a single speech given to a single university's Men's Issues club. And fourth, the talk is described as a criticism of academic Women's Studies, which doesn't necessarily make it the part of the MRM, even if there is some overlap in content and even if it was delivered to a Men's Issues club. What say you? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the text in question was reverted[36] as I was typing the above comment. Is it worth discussing further? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the problems with the sources, undue weight etc were totally covered in the discussion above. That's why I also reverted it. Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see what Dr. Fiamengo has published on this matter (her U of O biopage doesn't seem to list anything). That would be a valuable and interesting addition to the article, far more so than a speech or some off-the-cuff remarks in a free daily newspaper. For everyone pushing for this material to be included in the article - if you can locate a transcript of the discussion or (even better, far, far better) a peer-reviewed scholarly article, chapter or volume, I would discuss including it (and if in the form of a peer-reviewed document, almost certainly support including it). In the past I have corresponded with scholars regarding various wikipedia pages. While e-mail correspondence is not a reliable source, sometimes the scholars can point to missing sources that can fruitfully be included in the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My recent reversion

I just wanted to explain why I reverted this IP edit so quickly[37]. The IP deleted this as not supported by the sources: "Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg, for instance, believe that all men are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed and argue that power is an illusion for most men since women are the actual bearers of power."' I checked out the source, and found on page 43 (which is page 5 of the 13-page pdf) the following: "These writers believe that men (all men) are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed by systems that ignore the situation and therefore ensure its continuation.[...]for most men, power is an illusion and that women are the true power holders in society". The paragraph that this is from begins with mention of Farrell and Goldberg and their respective books, so it's clear they are the writers being referenced. I think the text I restored is pretty clearly supported by the source, but I'm explaining here because this article has been so sensitive and controversial. Link to the source for reference: http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the text would need to be labeled as to who is making this assertion. Such as 'Sarah Maddison states that blah blah blah'. I don't think we should be stating it in wikipedias voice. Arkon (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Several separate / distinct sentences, and an entire section, were deleted in one edit without sufficient discussion here for each. It is easier if each distinct content deletion is made separately, so discussion of each can occur here. Rapid deletion of material is premature without sufficient time for rebuttals by those who added material. Memills (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you check the sections above, you will see that all of the material in question has been discussed, not just the Farrell and Goldberg sentence, and there was no consensus to include it. Potentially controversial material should be discussed before it's added, not after, especially in an article that is on probation, and that's why the edit you just restored was reverted by several different users. Because of the article probation, I suggest you revert your edit and continue the discussion here - you can see that there are already discussions happening, and that consensus is not with you. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

While reporting of the protesting might be appropriate in some form in this article, however how it is currently written and placed is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be consensus, Kyohyi, which means the article at the moment does not reflect consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, there's no real reason for text to remain on the page if someone has an objection. If someone deletes material, you will have much more luck including it in the main page after achieving consensus on the talk page. Experienced editors can often parse tone and sources very quickly, so don't assume a quick removal means a thoughtless removal. The information on protests was discussed above, currently the only arguments in support of it are "I think it should go there", no discussion of how it is justified per the policies and guidelines - meanwhile several objections based on the P&G have been raised. On that basis, I've reverted again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed

" reproductive rights, divorce settlements, domestic violence laws, and sexual harassment laws," from the opening sentence and replaced them with a few others. I also added the word "perceived" in there somewhere. I have the supposed source for those removed items, the book by Newton, in front of me and find no mention of these in the pages referenced. Carptrash (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The author that book is a professor of Women's Studies, so perhaps the omissions are not surprising. However, I'm sure that there are other references that could be used here if one wanted accurately survey and cite the concerns of the MRM (e.g., books by Warren Farrell, David Benatar, Nathanson and Young, Roy Baumeister, etc.). Memills (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue here is not so much what the MRM is about, I agree that those items probably should be included, but rather the tendency of particular editors to add text to sections that are referenced that can not be found in the source mentioned. That Newton is a feminist is not relevant. That some editor adds a bunch of unreferenced material to a section that has a footnote is relevant. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just undid an edit

by User:142.255.21.150. I had added the word "perceived" in the opening sentence, s/he removed it, noting "(perceived? That is discriminatory and subjective.)". The way that the source (Newton p. 190) says it is, "what it saw" and the "it" here refers to the MRM. I feel that "perceived" is an adequate rephrasing of "what it saw" and so have placed it back. Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived" is a weasel word in this context, and, imho, should be removed. There are no equivalents re the women's rights' movement (feminism) article about "perceived" injustices. Memills (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, (opinion) "perceived" is not, by definition a weasel word, but, just to prove to all the folks watching that I can be nice to . . . ... other editors, I will replace it with a direct quote from the referenced source. Good enough? Carptrash (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's see... a change in the lede section of the MRM article from perceived to a "what it saw" quote referenced to a book written by an anti-MRM feminist professor of Women's Studies. Is the irony too thick? Memills (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add the reference. But I did read it and have quoted what it says. I did not find the author to be anti MRM either. Quite the contrary. Maybe you should read the book, not just the attacks on her at your favorite websites. But I believe that being surrounded by conspiracies is also a deeply ingrained part of the movement. I'll probably find a good reference for that in Susan Faludi's Backlash. Carptrash (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Susan Faludi?! You've got to be kidding. She is <BLP violation redacted> (cf. "The Beauty Myth"). But... of course, that is just MHO. I'm sure her books would be excellent sources to quote in the lede of the MRM page, too. Memills (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Memills, WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as article pages. If you have valid reason to dispute an author being used as a source, I'm sure you can find a way to express yourself without making personal attacks and name-calling. I'm not going to block you this time, but you really need to learn to moderate your tone and express yourself in a more civil fashion if you plan to continue to contribute here. KillerChihuahua 13:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not kidding, she does have some interesting things to say about the MRM, but . . . . . ... but not tonight.Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

...might be appropriate for that to go into a "Criticism of the MRM" section. But, I think that was suggested once, and it was shot down... (although "Criticism" sections are common on WP pages). Which brings me to...

...stating the obvious: that not everything is an opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Maintenance of running documentation/log of apparently biased content deletions and administrator sanctions on the MRM page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several editors here have complained that there has been a continuing pattern of bias in this article, including editors "sitting" on it, biased wikilawyering and "consensus" reaching, tag-teaming, and biased administrative policing of this article. There is the perception among some editors that the article tends to reflect and enforce a pro-feminist/anti-MRM perspective POV (see this). For example, recent examples might include the administrative sanction of CSDarrow,see here and, the recent content deletion of an entire section "Conflict between feminism and the mens' rights movement." diff

It is difficult for an individual editor to document a continuing pattern, since it happens over time, and many editors drop out after experiencing one or more instances of such bias. If there is such bias, it would be helpful to be able to refer to a historical collection of examples. Perhaps a running log or table can be maintained of the instances where editors believe this to be the case (perhaps here, or, at an independent wiki or website). The log might be in table form with the following documentation: the date, content deleted, the editor who made the deletion, the rationale for the deletion, a diff link(s), etc. Another table or log might be devoted to documenting administrative sanctions: the editor who was sanctioned, the administrator who placed the sanction, and relevant diff links.

Wikipedia has acknowledged its problems with conflict resolution, and, the hemorrhaging of editors due to perceived bias and incivility. If there are patterns of bias in the MRM article, it would be helpful to have such historical and continuing documentation available for new editors to be made aware of it up front, and, to assist in conflict resolution efforts via ANI or other venues. Memills (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is fascinating

to find it posted above, "The following discussion is closed." I looked up "discussion" and found, on wikipedia, "a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette." What is missing from the above "discussion" is a second or third person. I believe that the above posting is called a "monologue" or perhaps in modern usage, a "rant." I am NOT a wikilawyer, You will rarely see me referring to or quoting the rules, but I am wondering what the precedent is for declaring a monologue as a discussion and then closing it? Seems to fly against all wikitradition. Very curious indeed. I wonder who closed it? I suppose that is what the history button is for. Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so probably User:KillerChihuahua did it. I recently went to the very tough neighborhood and had to get out of my car in a lot defended by two pit bulls and a long haired Chihuahua. While they all got my full attention I had the feeling that the Chihuahua was running the show. As it shluld be. Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was I - and the "discussion" verbiage is part of the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. There is no provision for "this misuse of an article talk page is closed." Also: Pit Bulls are sweeties. Of course the chihuahua was running the show. :-) KillerChihuahua 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? I was more than prepared to make a "discussion" of it, and it is probably just as well that you intervened before that because afterwards you possibly would have felt a need to block me. Life. Who knew? Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that such a "discussion" is not likely to lead to an improvement of the article. Perceived admin bias etc. is dealt with more productively elsewhere or, if it is to be done here, the individual problems could be made part of an RfC or so. But generalities and innuendo are not easily dealt with in the first place. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As Drmies says, the point of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Carptrash, do you have any improvements to the article you'd like for us to consider? --JasonMacker (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Watch. Though this edit is not dependent on your consideration. Now, what have you got to offer to improve the article? Carptrash (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I just removed

this section from the lede,

Issues commonly associated with the men's rights movement include marriage, cohabitation, parentage, job discrimination, divorce, support agreements, and child support.

The source alluded to, the book by Wishard & Wishard does not address the men's rights movement at all. Or very little. The authors, a father & daughter team wrote their book (1980) to assist men through the legal changes that resulted from changes in laws and interpretation of laws brought about largely by the women's movement. They do not mention these items as being "associated with the men's rights movement." Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and put a neutrality dispute tag on the article to make it clear that there is a dispute. Can you explain why you did this and removed that section from the lede? I'm trying to figure out why it is you think that the reference provided does not corroborate the text? My view on this is that it's likely that it used to say "associated with men's rights", but when this article was moved to Men's Rights Movement that part of the text got changed to reflect the article's name, without regard to the source. So my idea is to keep the text in, but simply change it to reflect the source, i.e. change it back to "associate with men's rights", because that is what the book deals with.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I an not that concerned with your view of what is likely. I have the Wishard & Wishard book right in front of me. It does NOT say that these listed items are "associated with the mens rights movement." It can not be used as a source for that statement. The statement can not be returned without a source. Oh, and thanks for the tag. I knew something was going on. Carptrash (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And I see on your tag summary you wrote, "this is more accurate regarding the dispute because it's to do with whether a source is providing accurate facts or not."
That is not the case. The source facts are fine. It is that they are being misrepresented in the article. Carptrash (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the text should represent what the source actually says. The source talks about "men's rights", not "the men's rights movement", so the text should be changed to reflect that.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This article is not about men's rights, it is about the Men's Right Movement. Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead does not require citations. It is meant to summarize the article below. Since much of the article is a list of issues with brief discussion, one could simply copy and paste the table of contents into the lead and consider one's job done. I shall do so, and remove the tag in the process. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well good. So probably most of the stuff that I had removed can be placed back without the citations because I think most of them really belonged. Most is not the same as ALL, so it will be fun to see where this goes but my female intuition tells me that there still are shoals ahead. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article's factual accuracy is disputed

The article has been tagged for potentially being factually inaccurate, and other than it being touched on briefly in the above section, there doesn't seem to be a real discussion here related to this tag. If the tag is to stay, could we please have that discussion? What is inaccurate? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been getting some of the books that are referenced through interlibrary loan and doing some fact checking. I have removed what I saw as misrepresentation of these sources. I believe that the tag went up as a reaction to those edits. I will continue to do this but at this point am not disputing any facts and would be comfortable if the tag were removed. I think the tag that said editors here are fighting like cats and dogs was accurate and appropriate. However we need to hear from the editor who posted to tag, and likely will. Carptrash (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Typo in lede?

Hi,

Shouldn't the sentence " .... perceived discrimination and equalities faced by men..." be " ...perceived discrimination and INequalities faced by men ..."? Not that it isn't humorous, but ...

T 83.109.182.93 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was addressed [38]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideological meddling

I noticed a edit removing this piece " In the United States, the men's rights movement has close ideological ties to neoconservatism.[16][17][18] Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organizations[19] and their arguments haven been covered extensively in neoconservative media.[20] Relation to feminism" was reversed.

The mens rights movement is not a "neoconservative" movement".

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ASc568aunFoC&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

The author of this document on page 76 blatantly misrepresents the statement on the national organization for mens website and trys to paint them as something they're not.The statement was reflecting on the divorce courts and the devaluation of fathers in their childrens lives in what is turning into a single parent environment.This wasn't a plea for "family value" conservatism.

This source says that the MRM has had it's issues covered extensively in the neoconservative media yet gives no mention of ANY mainstream neocon media outlets that have supported the MRM http://xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Connell,%20Change%20among.pdf it is simply an unsupported claim

This source Kenneth Clatterbaugh (2000). "Literature of the U.S. Men's Movements". Signs (University of Chicago Press) 25 (3): 883–894. doi:10.2307/3175420. Gives an ad hominem attack that doesn't conform with views that are held by mens rights activists.I don't see any sources talking about MRA's wanting to take away reproductive rights from women

This source http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/ It is fallacious to assume that all antifeminists or even SOME antifeminists support the MRM.And this an opinion piece by a feminist conflating MRA's with the the "family value" conservative antifeminists.

All of these are invalid criticisms which further add to the feminist bias on all mens rights articles. The views of far right bernard chapin are not proof of this "neoconservative connection" within the MRM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored the section you deleted, because, even by your own acount here, the statements were all supported by the sources. You disagree with the sources, obviously, and we can and should have that discussion here, but the fact is that the article represents the sources, and that's what Wikipedia does. Verifiability, not truth. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability -- via feminist / anti-MRM sources, not MRM sources themselves. "Verifiaibility, not truth."

Excellent characterization of the problems that make this article largely a misleading parody of the MRM. Memills (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dawn Bard

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it documents and explains the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. It is not a random collections of information or a forum for advocacy. Merely because some thing is verifiable does not justify its inclusion in an article. Wikipedia does not simply "represent the sources", as you claim. Wikipedia relies on the knowledge, good judgement and good faith of its contributors to collect a balanced representation of significant views and facts that are verifiable; so creating an informative encyclopedic description of the subject. Read WP:5P.

That's what Wikipedia does. Can you honestly claim this paragraph does that? Your "supported by the sources" argument is an inadequate response to Metalheads' detailed rebuttal; and at odds with the very essence of Wikipedia. This paragraph should be removed, especially as I see no discussion prior its inclusion. CSDarrow (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that this paragraph be removed, together with a rationale for doing so. This paragraph was added without any discussion or consensus and is clearly problematic. I am therefore removing it. Please do not edit revert without discussion here. CSDarrow (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't post your opinion and then claim that because some redlinked editor agrees with you that it is consensus. Isn't "clearly problematic" another way of saying that you do not agree with the sources? Carptrash (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I concur that the deletion was appropriate.

BTW, WP doesn't care about the color of an editor's signature. It may be red for a variety of reasons, including previous threats against an editor.) Memills (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Or it could be because he choses red because he has communist leanings? Lots of reasons? Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, please revert your deletion of this material that CSDarrow restored (per his comment above). CSDarrow appropriately and civilly asked that it not be deleted again without further discussion here. Your deletion could be seen by an Administrator as edit warring on an article on probation, and sanction you for it (or... not). Memills (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, stop derailing.All of the sources give unsupported claims by feminists who strongly oppose the MRM, why is the political affilation defined by the critics? Critics of the feminism movement could just as easily say that it is a marxist movement and according to your logic that would be ok because ideologues who conform with your viewpoint agree .The one source should MENTION the neocon media sources that are associated with the MRM.Another source is giving an ad hominem attack conflating the MRM with the Republican party, how can they be considered a valid source confirming such an association? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Metalhead498 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)]] comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, we seem to be looking at two different realities, different truths if you will. Because from my perspective, I am restoring material that Darrow deleted. Is this that male female realities thing? Again? As far as admins go . . . . . .... they will do what they see fit. PS I don't usually reply to unsigned posting. Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalhead498, the problem is that here at WP we don't require secondary scholarly sources to prove their points with examples as you suggest, or indeed for sources to be "unbiased" and not influenced by a particular perspective. Please read WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:IRS. As editors of this encyclopedia all we do is summarize the high quality sources that there are. And in this case there are multiple sources that have made the linkage between neoconservatives and the MRM. And indeed www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/is-the-right-sympathetic-to-the-mra (can't link because of the blacklist) shows that men's rights activists themselves make the link. Do you have alternatives of similar quality to suggest? For example, scholarly sources that talk about men's rights activism being a non-partisan grouping? or others that talk about MR activists allied or linked with the left-wing or liberal media or parties? They may be out there. For example, Crowley, when talking about the Fathers' rights movement in her book "Defiant Dads", says that "leaders and members of fathers' rights groups come from all political persuasions including Republican, Democrats and Independents." p. 252 "The use of antistate rhetoric by fathers' rights groups, therefore, does not signify that their members are closely allied with neoconservative activism- although clearly some of them are- nor are these types of claims immutable political philosophy held by most Americans in a reflexive way. Instead father's rights groups are taking advantage of an important moment in political time to strategically align their arguments with the belief of a significant share of American voters." p 253 This is the sort of thing that you need, though focussed on the men's rights movement. That material could then be added. Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth, There many requirements of Wikipedia page including that the information form a balanced representation of the subject. It is fairly easy to find someone saying anything you wish about a group. By selective inclusion of sources any picture you wish can be painted. Which is what I would say is happening here. Neocon connections is not something I hear said about the MRM or FRM often; especially as the concept is an American one. These sentences have the effect of misleading the reader, and are poorly sourced opinions.

Simply finding sources does not immediately justify their inclusion, else Wikipedia would be anarchy. I might also direct you to WP:NPOV in general, and WP:UNDUE in particular. CSDarrow (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgetting references for the moment, are you suggesting, in the name of "a balanced representation of the subject," that there is no large area of overlap between the MRM and the conservative right? In America? Fascinating. A few moments ago we had feminism as a Marxist movement, now, what? MRM is a Liberal one? Carptrash (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This not the place to discuss the MRM or FRM., but I fail to see how Custody Issues, Male Suicide, Mens Health, Boys Education etc., has anything thing to do with politics left or right. Your misplaced view that the MRM is predominantly a right wing movement might explain many of your comments here. In reality most MRM issues effect working class men more, ie a group that statistically tends to be left of center. Painting the MRM as right wing may be convenient for some, but don't believe everything you read. CSDarrow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is your post addressed to SonicYouth, CSDarrow? Sonicyouth added the material to the article, and I have commented here. I think you have us confused somehow.

You are are quite right that WP requires us to have a "balanced representation of the subject", as you put it. How do we know that an article is a balanced representation? per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as you yourself mentioned: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It seems quite clear according to the citations provided by Sonicyouth86 that information about the neoconservative leanings of the movement (in the US... note that this is specified in the text) has been discussed by multiple reliable sources (and by some non-reliable MR sources to boot). You say that this is a selective inclusion of a particular perspective, and you may well be right. But the onus is now on you to provide reliable sources to back up the fact that there is this other perspective to include. That's what I asked you to do above, and I'm asking you to do it once again. Find some sources. Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This not the place to discuss the MRM or FRM., but I fail to see how Custody Issues, Male Suicide, Mens Health, Boys Education etc., has anything thing to do with politics left or right. Your misplaced view that the MRM is predominantly a right wing movement might explain many of your comments here. In reality most MRM issues effect working class men more, ie a group that statistically tends to be left of center. Painting the MRM as right wing may be convenient for some, but don't believe everything you read. CSDarrow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, sources, sources, sources. Your opinions about what is obvious or misplaced (and indeed what you think my opinion is) are irrelevant in this context. Opinions are two a penny. Provide some sources for the material that will balance the reliable sources presented to date, and then we will have something to discuss.Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, most folks interested in basic human rights, including those areas wherein men may be treated unfairly, are often seen as politically left of center. However, I think it is inappropriate to classify the MRM as left or right -- especially when such characterizations are coming from anti-MRM folks, rather than from MRM activists or authors themselves. Men, and women, of many political perspectives are interested in rectifying unfair or inequitable treatment of men.

Carptrash: You have not yet reverted your deletion. Again, until this issue is fully explored here, I would ask that you please do so. Memills (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat, opinions are two a penny. Find some sources to back them up.Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not planning on reverting anything. I put something, heavily referenced, back that was removed under a very marginal claim of consensus. But I am fascinated with this presentation of the MRM as "a group that statistically tends to be left of center" and "politically left of center". And, finally we are in agreement about something, that the right wing folks don't give a ...... fig about " basic human rights." A good starting point for further movement. Carptrash (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should revert, but neither do I think we need to encourage discussion about the topic as you suggest, Carptrash. This page and this encyclopedia are here to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. Talking about our opinions about where the MRM is on the political spectrum is totally pointless in the general scheme of things. --Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah . .. . . mumble, mumble, mumble . . . . . . ... okay. Sort of like, "DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS?" Carptrash (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's probably not the most calming way of putting it. I'd say something more like "keeping the discussion on track". One of the big problems here is that editors want the article to reflect their conception and vision of the men's rights movement (good or bad, left or right, liberal or conservative, progressive or traditionalist etc etc) and have difficulty facing up to the fact that in reliable sources the MRM has not always been described in a way that conforms to their own vision of the movement. As in the above discussion where personal opinions (including about how wrong the sources are) are the main topic of the discussion. And this can go both ways of course.... Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that, for the anti-MRM patrol duty contingent, certain sources are "more equal" than others. Content sourced from actual men's rights activists and authors is routinely challenged and deleted, content from anti-MRM sources is accepted uncritically. Not in line with NPOV, Slp1. Memills (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Memills, this is a kind of poisoning the well-type post that does not further discussion or benefit the encyclopedia. Lots of rhetoric but never any diffs or a source provided. What evidence do you have that "content sourced from men's rights activists and authors is routinely challenged and deleted"? What evidence do you have that "content from anti-MRM sources is accepted uncritically" except the fact that you personally disagree with what the scholarly reliable sources say on the topic of the MRM? I believe you have been told already to cease this kind of behaviour.[39] If you have a problem, use the methods suggested (including the WP:RSN given your specific points above) to resolve your complaints. Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Memills, I encourage you to add reliable sources supporting your view of the men's rights movement. The operative word being reliable. And please refrain from attempts to discredit editors as "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth. Wikipedia is not a medium for anyone to express their view, including yours. The responsibility of an editor is help create a balanced encyclopedic page. A fact at times I wonder might elude you. CSDarrow (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)