Talk:Men's rights movement

SPLC Criticism

(This is a merger of 3 talk sections; please read the talk page before starting a new section to see if the topic is already being discussed)

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

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)

Here is a link to an article written by the SPLC itself where it says that they did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement. I quote, "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Source:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/ --41.135.6.158 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this section really necessary?

"Criticism

The Southern Poverty Law Center has called it a misogynistic[2][3] movement that "goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations."[3]"

The second paragraph of the article already mentions the SPLC's views on the mens rights movement,it seems redundant to practically say the same thing twice. Metalhead498 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

All the content in the WP:LEAD is supposed to also be in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

although the content of the lead could be a condensed version of what is in the body. since it would be hard to condense that content, feel free to expand the content in the body if you can do so without bloating it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why the SPLC is cited at the beginning of the article and within the criticism section also. This appears to be an appeal to authority, and its placement at the beginning of the article provides it more prominence that seems justified. Voodooengineer (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be removed in both places. It is an appeal to authority, and the claim of "misogynistic" violates WP:Label. Blog posts or statements from self-described "advocacy organizations" have been routinely rejected as reliable sources in this article, and this one should not be an exception. Memills (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Rgambord (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Atleast the wording is quite far-streching: The Southern Poverty Law Center has called it a misogynistic[3][4] movement that "goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations."[4]

The full chapter from the source is: Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many.

I highlighted parts to make a point that the chapter actually is about those websites, blogs and forums, but are they about the MRM as a whole? The report states there are legitimate complaints too, but that there is misogynistic tone in much of those sites. But does this justify saying that the SPLC called it a misogynistic movement as a whole? I think not.

The next SPLC source: Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men. Some suggest that .

Again I don't see it saying the whole MRM is misogynistic, but that there are misogynistic in the movement, too. For some reason the lead is more accurate in that it says the MRM exhibits that, but the section itself has that far-streching claim. It needs to be edited. Also, as an European Wikipedian I am rather concerned that this article constantly gets too North American centred, obviously the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't comment any particular European MRM's for example. --Pudeo' 15:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized men's right activism as a hate group.[1][2]. So yes, it is notable. --South19 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You linked the exact same news pieces from which I took the quotes above. And no, I wasn't even contending whether SPLC is notable, it's about what they actually wrote. --Pudeo' 23:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Classified as hate group by SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized men's right activism as a hate group.[3][4]. [...WP:BDP-violating content removed...] This is important information. --South19 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

First, no matter what anyone says, "activism" is not a "group" of any sort. Second, I read the articles you linked to, and they do not say that men's rights groups per se are hate groups. Indeed, they repeatedly say that there are legitimate concerns raised by men's rights groups. Where they go wrong is in focusing on the wackos, while ignoring the very issues they admit are legitimate. If every movement were held to the standard of its looniest people, all movements (yes, including women, LGBT, race, religious, etc), which have always had separatist, violent, and elitist elements, would be labelled hate groups. SPLC of all groups should know better than to paint everyone with the same brush. Some individuals react to discrimination in ways that are not defensible, but that doesn't render the discrimination moot.24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to copy this here because it was posted above and I'm not sure it was seen.

Here is a link to an article written by the SPLC itself where it says that they did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement. I quote, "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Source:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/ --41.135.6.158 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got nothing to say on the matter, only copying it because it's the same topic, was recently posted in an area where discussion has long since ceased, and received no attention.--v/r - TP 14:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I noted earlier above, the term "misogynistic" violates WP:Label.

Further, this is an opinion piece by an advocacy organization -- this was not published in a secondary or scholarly source. If this qualifies as a legitimate source, then similar material from MRM websites and magazines would too, and, comments from MRM folks characterizing other groups/organizations as "misandrous" could also be used here.

This material from Southern Poverty Law Center should be removed. Memills (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"The SPLC is highly regarded in academic circles" is a grand and easy statement to make, but not so easily verified. The "Intelligence Reports" on the SPLC web site are opinion pieces, in this case by Goldwag and Schlatter; Goldwag is a well known polemicist. There is no evidence they are peer reviewed or fact checked above that of standard editorial oversight. There is nothing to suggest the opinions expressed in the articles are official positions held by the SPLC; just as the views of a columnist are not the official position of a newspaper. The SPLC has a page categorizing hate groups, no MRM organization or person is on it.

Furthermore, I'd suggest the opinions of these sources are not of sufficient weight for inclusion in the article, especially in the lead. It is possible to find just about anyone saying anything, which is what these articles are about. WP:UNDUE is very clear about these issues. Also policy decisions made on other pages concerning the SPLC do not apply here.

Since this dispute is an argument of fact, it can only be resolved by appeal to a neutral authority; in this case to Dispute Resolution Noticeboards WP:DRN. Which is where I'll take it next, and beyond if necessary.

CSDarrow (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, CSDarrow and Memills, but the above is absolute balderdash. These articles are not blogs or opinion pieces but were published in the Intelligence Report, a quarterly publication of the SPLC,[5] complete with an editorial oversight (including a named editor in chief [6]). Questions at the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard have repeatedly found the SPLC to be a reliable source of information, particularly for attributed statements. (see for example [7][8]). If you want to argue that is not a reliable source then please go to the RSN, and get clarification from there that views about the Intelligence Report and the organization have changed.

The views of the SPLC as published by in the Intelligence Report have repeatedly cited (yes positively) by academics [9] and the media [10] including these very articles about the men's rights movement [11][12]. It is ridiculous to suggest that the views of the SPLC is not significant on this issue.Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the following quotes from the Goldwag article are also officially held views of the SPLC?

• "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals."

• "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women."

• "Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."

By your logic we could incorporate these 'facts' into the page and attribute them to the SPLC.

I am reverting your edit. Any further reversions and I start the dispute resolution process. All in this discussion will be invited to participate.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your argument here? Do you have something to say about reliability or notability or not? Something to counter the links and citations I gave? When you quote the red herrring above do you not know or understand that there is a distinction between the men's rights movement and the men's movement? Go ahead with seeking dispute resolution if you wish, but you'll have to find that there is a better argument than complete red herrings and straw men. Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The three SPLC URLs ([13][14][15]) do not support any assertion that the men's rights movement is a "hate group". The hate group designation is very specific, and is reserved for identifiable groups, not whole movements. The SPLC names Alcuin, Boycott American Women, The Counter Feminist, The False Rape Society, In Mala Fide, MarkyMark’s Thoughts, MensActivism, Reddit: Mens Rights, Roosh V, SAVE Services, The Spearhead, and A Voice for Men as hate groups. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the SPLC named any of them as hate groups. In fact a subsequent SPLC blog says explicitly "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence" [16]. I would oppose any mention of "hate" or "hate group" designation without some very clear sources about this. Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Spl1. So using your sources and logic concerning their reliability we can construct the following:-

• The Southern Poverty Law Center says the men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists. Further more the SPLC say they take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women.

I am left with an uneasy feeling here. You'd consider putting that in the lead? I will prepare my submission to the to WP:DRN over the weekend, (unless the disputed content is removed by others). My argument btw is not a Red herring or a Straw man but Reductio ad absurdum.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is a red herring. Once again, did you actually read the sentences you quoted? Or what I wrote in response? The sentences you quoted don't connect the men's rights movement to mail order brides, batterers of pickup artists etc etc. They connect the men's movement to them. So no I won't be suggesting adding this to the lead of this article.

As Cailil suggests below and I do above, I think you need to start your dispute resolution at the RSN. I will certainly abide by what their determination. Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Even someone in an ESL program can see the terms are being used interchangeable. CSDarrow (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the insult, I'll just point out that since the two terms aren't interchangeable, no WP editor should dream of making the assumption that they are being used that way. But I'm done with this total red herring and straw man. Please go to RSN and if they agree that the Intelligence Report is a unreliable source, and I'll be happy delete the material. Slp1 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) CSDarrow you'd be better off taking the issue to RSN or dropping it (Memills's removal under WP:LABEL was not correct - the information can be attributed not necessarily removed). The SPLC's reliability as a source has been tested already under Wikipedia's standards. In order to claim it is unreliable you need to change the consensus - this can be done at RSN.
However Binksternet is 100% correct here the SPLC don't say the movement is misogynistic they name specific groups. The wording needs to reflect that. I think this needs work.
Furthermore threatening people with "dispute resolution" is illogical. Dispute resolution is about resolving, not winning, arguments. Using WP:DRN as a bludgeon, or threat, is a bad way to start such a process--Cailil ^talk 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Cailil.The page WP:Etiquette makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, I actually disagree with your point about rewording. Binkersnet's point above is not about the misogeny issue but about specific MR groups being named as "hate groups" - which I don't think is actually the case based on the sources I've seen. What the SPLC says about the misogeny issue is "we did call out specific examples of misogyny",[17] "Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men."[18] "Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones)".[19] I think "The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized aspects of the American movement for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies" is a pretty accurate summary. Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with CSDarrow (talk. This needs to go to ANI to assess LABEL and UNDUE.

Agree with TP (below) -- Slp1, in particular, has had a very quick trigger finger on the Undo Button. Let it ride at least for a few days to see if a compromise or solution can be hashed out here first. Memills (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

reinsert comment that was deleted by Rgambord (talk · contribs) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Please refrain from commenting on editors' alleged need to "get out more" and their "trigger finger". I assume that you are familiar with the terms of the article probation because you were warned and sanctioned multiple times. Please note that your change was reverted by two different editors and that Slp1 was not one of them.

If you believe that the SPLC is an unreliable source you are free to start a new discussion at WP:RS/N. I am willing to add many more reliable sources that describe the mrm or aspects of the mrm as misogynistic if that is what you and other editors want. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus fucking Christ people! The lot of you make me want to indef full protect this article. Quit the damn warring. So what if the quote exists or doesn't exists for 3 or 4 days while the matter is discussed? Protected for 3 more days while you finish discussing this. Does it really matter if the article doesn't look like any of you want it to for a few days? I understand why KC has been virtually run off. They're really tired of the constant bickering.--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 April 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[20] 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. [21] 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,[22] 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)

My recent reversion

I just wanted to explain why I reverted this IP edit so quickly[23]. 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 will leave the editing to someone who knows what they are doing but it is simply dishonest to attribute a belief to person A on the mere accusation of person B, as Arkon said above say 'Sarah Madison states...' not 'Farrell believes'. If there is a quote of Farrell for example saying he thinks something or explaining a consistent view point then cite that. I will try to find a copy of the works that the reference mentions (and trawl through the entire things as Sarah Maddison doesn't mention any specific part just whole books) to find something usable but as it stands you are putting words in peoples mouths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.122.67 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 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)

"Perceived"

The word "perceived" is an accurate descriptor of "discrimination", used in exactly that formulation by Professor Anna Gavanas of the University of Leeds, expert in the phenomenon of fatherhood movements. On page 11 of her book Fatherhood Politics in the United States she writes, "All these cases of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women." The context of this quote is a discussion by Gavanas of the main concern of men's rights activists: men's individual powerlessness. She quotes MRM leader Warren Farrell who said that male employers are disempowered by the flirtatiousness of their secretaries. Gavanas says that MRM activists identify as discrimination what they see as harsher legal sanctions against men for domestic abuse and sexual assault; they point to the social demands placed on the traditional breadwinner and the more dangerous work taken by men. Gavanas says these are all "perceived discrimination", that men's rights advocates "feel" marginalized. She does not say they are marginalized, or that they are discriminated against. Thus we have a scholarly viewpoint of the issue, a measured analysis of the situation.
I'm surprised Gavanas was not already referenced. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be mixing and matching the Fathers' rights movement with the broader MRM. Good reference it seems, not sure it belongs in the lead with the focus appearing to be more on the Father's rights side of things. Arkon (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To add, I don't think this belongs even if it was specific to the MRM. If one source states 'perceived' what would it take from another source to contradict that? Arkon (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I selected one of many possible references, for simplicity. The mainstream viewpoint of MRM is that the perceived discrimination is not proven.

Gavanas was discussing MRM in the section I cited, not fatherhood rights activists. She describes the difference between them, which would be good for this article to have. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, what language in other sources would it take to remove the 'perceived'? Arkon (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can help you with that. Rather, I have found more substantiation for the word "perceived" used to describe the injustices named by MRM folks. The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science says on page 758 that the psychology of men is marked by strain caused by aspects of the traditional masculine gender role. Corsini says that the Robert Bly style men's myth movement was followed by "a second men's movement, called the men's rights movement, [which] emerged from networks of men working together to fight what were perceived to be inequities in the judicial system." Alan R. Petersen, PhD, author of Unmasking the Masculine, writes with Senior Sociology Researcher Deborah Lupton in The New Public Health, page 85, to say that "a wider 'men's movement'... has challenged the neglect its members perceive of men's rights, emotions and selfhood." Professor Richard Collier of Newcastle University writes in Masculinity, Law and Family, pages 13–14, that a crisis of masculinity, with men feeling obsolete, has "a specifically legal dimension and has been marked perhaps most clearly by perceived changes in men's lives in relation to both family and work... The scale of the transition in men's familial relations has been marked by the perceived diminution of specifically legal rights..." Psychologist Christopher Kilmartin writes about Warren Farrell saying that "Farrell's change from profeminism to the men's rights perspective was a result of what he perceived to be a vilification of men by feminism" (The Masculine Self, page 310.) Behavioral scientist Donileen R. Loseke edited the scholarly book Social Problems: Constructionist Readings, which includes the chapter "Framing in the Father's Rights Movement" written by Gwyneth I. and Rhys H. Williams. The Williams' write on page 96 about how the men's movement, abbreviated "FRM" for father's rights movement, uses rhetoric full of claims that men are victims of systematic discrimination, this being the foremost claim, and that a claim of absolute "gender discrimination" is a central tenet for both the conservative and the liberal branches of the FRM (page 94). "More frequently than not, however, men's rights advocates simply make an ambiguous appeal for 'equal rights' rather than spelling out the specific constitutional guarantees they believe have been violated. They perceive a basic unfairness..." Public law expert Dr. Judith A Baer edited the reference work Historical and multicultural encyclopedia of women's reproductive rights in the United States, which includes a section written by Gwyneth I. Williams about the Father's Rights Movement. Williams writes on page 81 that men's rights activists in the 1980s did not work to redefine masculinity at a larger macro-social level, "rather, they concentrated on fighting what they perceived as sex discrimination in family law..." All of these observers are careful to maintain a neutral account of the concerns of men's rights activists, and they make sure to qualify the injustices as being perceived ones rather than actual ones. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also point out that "perceived" does not necessarily imply that the perception is wrong. There have been times in the history of this article where wording has been used to make sneaky unsupported and derogatory claims regarding the MRM, but I don't think this is one of thos times. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that the discrimination faced by men is contested by both sides, I think "perceived" is appropriate. The Gavanas quote also quite clearly supports this applying specifically to the MRM, even if it is found in a book on the FRM in general. It appears to be one of many sources that could be used, I don't think this is worth cite-bombing the single word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that "perceived" is an appropriately neutral choice of wording. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that "perceived" accurately reflects what the reliable sources say, and that it is appropriate here per WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Protected 3 days due to warring.--v/r - TP 18:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One word sure can incite a lot of hostilities. Regardless of individual sources, it's a violation of WP:WEASEL. Why is it a violation of WP:WEASEL? Because the statement means the same thing if you remove the word. "Perceived" is implied; people don't fight against things they don't perceive -- in fact, they can't, it's logically impossible -- and there has never in the history of mankind been an arguable consensus on anything; thus, every single statement on wikipedia ought to have the word "perceived" tacked onto it. Look at Human rights movement and add "perceived" into the description; notice that the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't change, since perception is implied, yet it subtly affects readers' support or opposition of that topic. Try the same with Feminism. This isn't where we go to the sources and say, "Oh, but the merriam webster definition of feminism doesn't have the word, but all these feminist writers use it when referring to the men's right's movement," to justify the dichotomy; this is when we use our noggins and think about the effect of language, and the overall goal of this encyclopedia to provide neutral and unbiased information. If we defined each topic by what its detractors say about it, wikipedia would not be a very reliable source of information, now would it? I find that, in times such as this, it's often best to look at the simple english wikipedia's guidelines:

"Another problem is that weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that Queen was a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth.

If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. [Answer: It's true without the weasel word] If there is a genuine opinion, make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where, and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have?[Answer: a lot of bias] How many is "some"? If you consider the different answers these questions might have, you can see how meaningless the "some people say" qualification is. To assist users in deciding how to attribute ideas more precisely, the Wikipedia verifiability policy provides specific criteria for the support a statement must have for it to remain in an article unchallenged." -http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 01:47, 13 April 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 [24]. 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)

More comments about red linked usernames.--v/r - TP 01:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

WP:NPA--v/r - TP 01:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.[25] 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)

Nothing about editing the article--v/r - TP 01:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) CSDarrow, you need to stop with the personal attacks immediately. For the record, Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now. It's time for an admin to step in and issue a binding restriction for him and for CSDarrow, and for anyone else who continues to ignore our polices. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack. Please retract it immediately. Memills (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Memills, how many times have you been warned to use reliable sources and to stop attacking other editors? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Please file your formal complaint immediately. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Viridatis. Excuse me? But my musing was a genuine comment not a personal attack; I really do wonder. When someone posts sources that are only critical of the MRM I think what I have said is pertinent, reasonable and not an Ad Hominen. Frankly my comment seems tame relative to "Sort of like, "DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS?", which I read above and was partially in reference to me. If some one wants to come in here and impartially take this page by the scruff of the neck then that's fine by me, you will have my full support. Consistency however will be the key to any success at this. CSDarrow (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Please, save your excuses for ANI. Your genuine comment was a genuine attack on Sonicyouth86. Either you guys shape up or ship out. Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Viriditas, I give of my time freely to Wikipedia on many areas of this encyclopedia. I left the MRM page cause frankly the way it is run is a disgrace to Wikipedia relative to what I see elsewhere. I came back yesterday to see if things had changed, clearly they have not and any attempts at contributing are futile. I don't come to Wikipedia to be called an animal or spoken to in an imperious tone. You gave me two choices, I have chosen the latter. CSDarrow (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Stop making things up. Nobody called you an animal, and you "left" MRM because you were blocked on March 11th for violating the article probation. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC) CSDarrow has been blocked once. Viriditas has been blocked 9 times. Who should be leaving? Memills (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Patrolling Administrator warning: Memills, I'm going to be issuing a topic ban shortly for another editor. I suggest you find a new train of thought unless you're itching for one too.--v/r - TP 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) That's a red herring. Actually, Veriditas has only been blocked six times (two unblocks, plus a reblock for a reduced length of time), and the last block was in 2010, before CSDarrow even began editing. Moreover, Veriditas has over 121,000 edits, while CSDarrow has less than 1,000. You cannot draw an equivalence based on block logs in this case. Horologium (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Center for American Progress

I reverted Memills' removal of a sentence sourced to the Center for American Progress site ThinkProgress. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprised. However, using blog posts as sources has been routinely used here as the rationale for removing content. I agree with your comment just above "I encourage you to add reliable sources. ...The operative word being reliable." Blog posts from self-described "advocacy organizations" have been routinely rejected as reliable sources in this article. Memills (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Center for American Progress may be an unreliable source for claims about the men's rights movement but it is a very reliable source for its own view of the National Coalition of Free Men. Your repeated removal of sourced content without consensus is troubling. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not disregard WP:NEWSBLOG. The Center for American Progress is not a news organization, it is a self-described advocacy organization. If we are to allow this blog post as a reliable source, so too would blogs posted at other advocacy organizations, such as blogs at men's rights organization websites. I don't think many folks here would approve of that. Memills (talk) 18:15, 30 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. [26]. In addition, here is the website of a men's rights organisation which lists studies to support its claims on parental leave. [27]. 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)

Are there any policy-based objections to removing the section? I think we can all agree that the source doesn't mention the men's rights movement, which means that the section WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I added notable and reliable references re this topic, including one to a prominent MRA -- Warren Farrell. Memills (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:OR: Could you please cite the passages that mention the men's rights movement in connection to parental leave? I'm asking because I took a look at the three references you added and couldn't find anything about the men's rights movement. If the sources do not mention the MRM then what you did is add more OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I could easily find some blog posts from MRM advocacy groups -- would that be ok to post? Warren Farrell is a men's right's activist (part of the MRM), and has been referenced throughout the article. The other two are scholarly articles and are more relevant to the topic than the other sources in this section which also don't refer specifically to the MRM.

Also, you moved this section out of its chronological order (to the bottom of the Talk page). Please don't move sections of the Talk page out of chronological order. Memills (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. The three sources you added do not mention the men's rights movement and neither does the forth source (as discussed above). What is the policy-based objection to removing a section consisting entirely of WP:OR? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Those 1994 references do not support the assertion. They do not say anything about the men's rights movement. I took them out. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Three sources were provided by Memills to cite the following text ""some of these [parental leave] provisions have been argued to discriminate against men".[28] Let's look at all three.

• As suspected above, this reference does not mention parental leave as an issue of concern of men's rights movement, and so it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to include it.
• I will disagree with some of the posters above, as I think Warren Farrell is a well-established enough spokesman for the MRM that something written by him would be useable as a citation without direct reference to the MRM. But when I check this source, what do I find? Two of the three references to parental leave are in the foreword, which was actually written by Karen DeCrow, and talks about to how feminist lawyers (including herself) have being urging the concept of parental leave (rather than maternity leave) since 1974!!! Are feminist lawyers suddenly part of the MRM?!!! And no mention of discrimination, of course. Farrell's only actual comment on the matter is to say "Mid-career men, often burned out with work, sometimes need to see just one successful person take a parental leave to be inspired to do the same". This by no means supports the claim either. In fact he says quite the opposite. Farrell implies men don't take advantage of the opportunities for parental leave that they do have. I gather Farrell is correct about this.[29][30][31]
• As with the previous reference, this one makes no mention of the MRM. But worse that that, nowhere is there any mention of discrimination against men. Believe it or not, the only discrimination it talks is how US parental leave laws laws discriminate against women!!!!

Memills, I am utterly appalled by your editing on this page. Once again you add references that are either OR/SYNTH -as they make no mention of the men's rights movement - or fail WP:V by completely and utterly misrepresent the source. Or, unbelievably, both. You clearly did not read the sources, and I'd suggest that the google search strings you used, which are contained in the citations, (for example here where you used "parental leave discrimination men") say yet more about your editing approach, and explain how you came to use an article that repeatedly talks about discrimination against women as a citation for material about discrimination against men. I've just wasted more than 2 hours of my afternoon checking up on this, reading the articles and finding your clear errors and misrepresentations. What an utter waste of time. Slp1 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Slip1, good work, but you missed one: the last remaining reference in the Paternity Leave section: "Internal Review of Leave Policies and Related Research". Employment Relations Research Series No. 80. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2007. pp. 12–13." This source does not refer to the men's rights movement in particular, nor to men's rights in general. So it to must be deleted too as OR.

Since that was the last reference, what remains of the section "Paternity Leave" should be entirely deleted.

Who would have thought that paternity leave would be an issue of concern to the MRM anyway? Apparently no one in the movement (including Warren Farrell) has written anything about the topic that merits a mention on WP.

Mission accomplished. Memills (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you absolutely no shame? It is found that you -an academic to boot have once again added OR and unverifiable material with false citations, and your response is to insult and impugn the motives of other editors. And then to continue to use one of the references that was shown to be false above.[32] Incredible. --Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm an academic? Things that make you go: hummm.... Memills (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You have mentioned it over and over and over again -Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Watch it guys, this conversation is leading off constructive paths.--v/r - TP 18:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. But I hope this won't distract you and KC from the core point that there is a continuing pattern of highly problematic V, OR edits from this editor. Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm paying close attention everyone's comments.--v/r - TP 01:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Different schools of the academia and NPOV

In part continuing the closed section Talk:Men's_rights_movement#separating_feminist_commentary_from_primary_sources_in_the_men.27s_rights_movement:

"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 have to acknowledge that in social sciences, there is no single prevailing paradigm but different schools. We can't just interpret one or a few sources as the only truth in non-exact sciences. Let's take the organisation studies as an example, there are several schools: scientific management, classical management theory, human relations, structural theory, systems theory, cultural theory, symbolic interpretation, postmodernism etc. You can't just pick one scholar and say it's the truth, in fact scholars often have differing views which they sometimes debate in the publications. The feminist school in sociology represents one normative view that inherently disagrees with the MRM. The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject.

I think it's a rather fundamental acknowledgement editors must make when editing this article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences, I believe. --Pudeo' 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the "see also" section link to "mens studies"?

^ Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has described men's studies as "a wholly owned branch of women's studies" and scholar David Clemens has argued that the core question of men's studies throughout America is "Why are men so awful?"

In no way is mens studies related to the mens rights movement other then through the very loose association that is created through criticism by academics within the realm of mens studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

History section

I've removed a substantial expansion of the history section. It relied heavily on newspaper articles from the 1920s and 30s, as well as a reference to German wikipedia. The former contained far too many specific statements attributed to primary sources without contextualization in secondary sources, constituting original research in my mind (particularly given the reliable sources attributing the MRM as a reaction to the women's rights movement/feminism from several decades later). Wikis are not reliable sources, not even German wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Note that much of the content seems to be taken from various pages of the unknownmisandry.blogspot. e.g. [33][34], which is run by "The Gonzo Historian" "St-Estephe". For some different articles, I asked about similar material written by the same guy but posted on the slightly more reliable Good Men Project, and it was unanimously turned down as a source, especially as it was contradicting scholarly sources. [35] --Slp1 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the references to the German Wiki look good. But I think you should restore the parts referenced to newspaper articles. Unless you believe those to be a misrepresentation. Arkon (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the scholarly sources say the MRM split off from the men's liberation movement in the '70s, I don't think we should naively reference German newspaper articles from four decades earlier as if they were the same issues, groups and ideas. I have no objection to the MRM of the 1930s being included if reliable, secondary sources can be found that adequately contextualize them within the 20th century. The material found in the articles may be perfectly accurately summarized, but that doesn't change the fact that they are primary sources. There are a couple tantilizing sources (in addition to the news articles, google books turns up this and this), both of which do clearly demonstrate the organization existed (and that it was considered somewhat of a joke). A brief mention that the organization existed and then folded might be worth including, but more secondary sources would be better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I mentioned above I disagree with this original research using primary sources such historical newspaper articles, per WP:OR and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please see WP:USINGPRIMARY for more info too. All the material appears to be based on the unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca website.) As WLU mentions above, we need some secondary sources that contextualize these articles. Ranze, please join the discussion here. Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

PS. I thought I had reverted the material this second time, but it seems like Maunus got there first!--Slp1 (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of links to german wikipedia, just figured it was useful to note even if we lack a page about a guy, pages do exist on the wiki most likely to have pages about Germans/Austrians (a wiki written in their native language). I reverted the removal because I don't think the statements were properly nominated. We can do fact-checking and stuff but even if we link some aspects of MRM to be a 70s spinoff I don't think that means we should ignore those which spawned earlier. This article is for anything classifiable as MRM, not some specific American hippy flavour of it. Feminism discusses not just American suffrage movements, but also those in the UK, France, etc. So why should we exclude something just because it's Austrian? Ranze (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here, Ranze. First, just to reassure you that nothing is being excluded because it is Austrian. The problem, as noted above, is that this material sourced to primary newspaper articles, directly contradicts multiple scholarly sources. It was also way to much. Do you know of secondary sources about this movement? Also did you consult the newspapers yourself, or were you relying on the unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca website for their transcriptions. Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how newspapers are primary sources, the articles are being written by second parties so they should be secondary sources, I think. Why is it 'too much'? If this organization had 25 000 (international) members in the post-WW1 depression era, that's pretty notable, and seems like it would be significant and influential. Also this does not contradict scholarly sources so much as supplement them. If a scholar claims 'this started here and then' they're just reporting to the best of their ability. It's not as if they're asserting a negative like "this idea couldn't possibly have began earlier or elsewhere".

Earlier known aspects of the movement were organizations founded in Austria in the 1920s. I'm assuming good faith in regard to the veracity of those articles, while I haven't seen shots of the full text there were convincing-looking shots of the titles. Also since WLU has provided some tantilizing stuff, I'll at least get started on that here in the talk page. WLU has provided even more convincing that this organization existed, giving me even more faith that these news articles about the organization also existed. If I were able to find full JPG scans of them, would it be permissible to upload them to the Wikimedia Commons as verification? This could take time as many of these newspapers may not be in business anymore.

• Youth and sex: a psychological study by Meyrick Booth (G. Allen & Unwin, 1932) pg 209 "...situation is the instinctive bias of the general public. A recent attempt to start a league for men's rights was instantly killed by laughter, but nobody could ahve said why they laughed. Perhaps it was because of a..."

Is this also 'too old' or 'too primary'? I'm not really sure why a book would be more secondary than a newspaper (it's all publishing by secondary sources assessing the movement, including a paper from a female columnist) but I think this only solidifies that this did not begin in the 70s even if that's when it gained more momentum.

• Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire: Total War and Everyday Life in World War I by Maureen Healy (Cambridge University Press, May 27, 2004) pg 272: As historians Sigrid Augeneder and Gabriella Hauch explain, legally removing women from traditional male jobs constituted one facet of the return to a "healthy order" (gesunde Ordnung) in the postwar period.⁴⁵ Arbeiterinnen im Ersten Weltkrieg: Lebens-und Arbeitsbedingungen proletarischer Frauen in Osterreich (Vienna: Europaverlag, 1987), 2l5; Gabriella Hauch, Vom Frauenstandpunkt aus: Frauen im Parlament 1919-1933 (Vienna: Verlag fur Gesellschafts-kritik, 1995), 27. Hauch discusses the somewhat comical League for Men's Rights founded in the 1920s to "protect the endangered existence of men," 11-14.

It's worth noting that "somewhat of a joke" as WLU summarizes reflects the "somewhat comical" subjective opinion of Maureen Healy's interpretation of Gabriella Hauch's interpretation of the movement. In all likelihood, in previous times there were men who dismissed women's rights organizations as comical jokes, so it's easy to understand that women dismissing men's rights organizations as comical could also be due to bias. The very idea that 'comical' is actually a scholarly conclusion is more absurd than the LfMR ever could have been.

We should keep in mind here that we may be dealing with an issue of historical censorship. It is clear based on sources that these movements lost momentum and failed, so the 70s adaptation could be called a resurrection of sorts. It is clear that people in the 30s and also 80s were both derisive of these movements. Being the subject of mockery, being wiped out, does not mean something lacked notability or validity though. That some laugh at it may say something about the laugher depending on what in particular was being laughed at. Ranze (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Extending the history of the men's rights movement back to the 1920s based on news articles from 1929 is clearly OR, and it gives undue weight to what cannot be considered other than outdated and non-notable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, we are not doing it solely based on news articles anymore. This organization and history is also referenced in other literature. WLU got the ball rolling excellently, and we can continue this. Here is more:

1. Here in "Gender and war in twentieth-century Eastern Europe" published in 2006 by Indiana University reference 54 also refers to the same book by Hauch that Healy references in her 2004 publication. Scrolling back, reference 54 is pointed to on either page 56 or page 57 which are not included in the preview (last ref on pg55 is #45, first ref on pg58 is #60)
2. Here: in "An American in Hitler's Berlin: Abraham Plotkin's Diary 1932-33" (published 2009 by University of Illinois) page 31: (original diary December 1932)
   1. The League for Men's Rights, to which Plettl, the President of the German Needle Trades Alliance, sent me an invitation, turned out to be a forum somewhat on the American order. The League itself is liberal and pacifist in its tendency, but is willing to give anyone who has a message a hearing - provided he is wililng at the same time to listen to such criticism as the audience or members of the audience may want to express.
   2. The Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte had been formed out of the Bund Neues Vaterland, a pacifist organization founded in November 1914. It was forced to dissolve in 1933 because of persecution by the Nazis.
   3. Walter A. Berendsohn was a professor of Scandinavian literature at the University of Hamburg and active member of the League for Men's Rights. He emigrated to Sweden in 1933.
3. The New York times index - Volume 14, Issues 1-2 - Page 346 from 1926 gets a hit for "League for Men's Rights" although a preview is not available.
4. Here: In "The German national revolution: major events from Feb. 1 to May 15, 1933" by Fritz Morstein Marx published in 1933 by Friends of the New Germany; page 11 AND Here in Volume 5 of the 1929 Hamburg-Amerika-Post published by Friedrichsen, De Gruyter on page 86 collectively say:
   • "Civil servants whose previous political activity (especially since November 9, 1918) does not guarantee that they will everytime fully identify themselves with the "national state" can be dismissed. Each official is obliged on request to inform his superiors about his part affiliations. Political parties are also the Reichsbanner Black-Red-Gold, the Republican Union of Judges, the League for Men's Rights, the Association of Republican Officials and the Iron Front."

We have clear evidence here of notability. Back during the post-WW1 pre-WW2 Nazi reformation, this organization was noteworthy enough for public bulletins to be circulated necessitating that government employees notify their superiors about it. The implication here is that this, like these other groups, had interests not necessarily in line with the National Socialist party.

Yeah, seeing as how Nazis did tend to wipe out their enemies, we might have a lil' bit of trouble collecting information about them, but it's clearly there, and they clearly existed. Ranze (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Given particularly the newspapers, all we can really say about the movement is that it existed. We could note specific events that happened, but even here we are out on a limb because we assume that they meant the same things we do when we say "men's rights movement". I am OK with basically a single sentence along the lines of "In the 1930s in Germany a group known as the [whatever German name] (translation) organized to address (very brief summary of issues), but the movement was not taken seriously and soon disbanded". There doesn't seem to be any continuity with the current MRM, which is rather crippling for anything but a mere mention on this page. Certainly, this doesn't deserve 6,000 characters worth of discussion.

Even the non-newspaper sources are reprints of diaries and the like, which still count as primary sources (or, rather, somewhat bizarre primary-secondary sources, but none are scholarly and to date none provide any sort of analysis). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- I don't agree with the addition of "Liga fur Menschenrechte" because that phrase translates to "League for the rights of people" rather than men specifically. I also think the disputed section was too long, particularly with the excrutiating list of numbered points. However, I disagree with the notion that events in the 20s and 30s cannot be referenced to the newspaper coverage of the time. That idea is frankly ridiculous, as is the claim that newspaper articles can be rejected as being primary sources. You could make the argument that associating various organizations "for Mens Rights" with the mens rights movement is OR, however claiming the opposite is a long bow to draw and I don't think it would take much at all to dismiss the charge of OR. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

80 years old newspaper articles are of course primary sources for 1920s history, and therefore OR to use unless they have been used by contemporary historians. They also of course not can be claimed to have any relation to events 80 years later unless reliable sources consider them to have such relation. They also do not show that events were notable unless they are still remembered in other sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. You wouldn't consider it OR to use newspaper articles written today about events that happened yesterday, and they wouldn't suddenly become unreliable if 80 years later no historians have happened to have cited them. It's stupid to contend anything of the sort. So why despise newspaper articles written 80 years ago about events of that time? Reyk _YO! 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think you are correct. There is a big difference between the status of newspapers writing about yesterday's news, and using 90-year-old newspaper articles. Think about it; as just one example, whereas we have a good idea about the reliability of The New York Times, The Sun, and The National Enquirer and can appropriately judge how much weight and credit to give their articles, we can't easily do the same for newspapers in Austria and Germany 90 years ago. That's why we need historians to put the information in context. Wikipedia policy and guideline pages repeatedly discuss newspapers are primary sources in a historical context. See this one for example.--Slp1 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So why is it acceptable to judge how much weight and credit to give to some primary sources, while accepting others (such as research papers in feminist journals) uncritically? I am OK with using an 80 year old newspaper article to verify the existence of some organization around at the time, since this doesn't seem a particularly controversial thing to say. Do you have any reason to suspect these newspapers were lying or mistaken? Of course we would need more than just these sources to connect the 20s stuff to today's MRM, but I still see no reason whatsoever to say "These sources are old, therefore unusable for anything". Reyk _YO! 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Research papers published in journals (feminist or not) are not primary, but secondary, sources. (see WP:PSTS). And like it or not we do give them more weight. But if it is any comfort, the research papers would have to be recent too. What I suspect is that Ranze got all this information from that misandryblogspot site, and hasn't checked directly to see whether any of the newspapers actually printed any of this info. Given what you quite correctly said about the meaning of "Menschenrechte" in the context of the two "Liga fur Menschenrechte", and my own researches into their history see e.g.[36][37] at the very least that website is misrepresenting the focus of these organizations. If an editor can say that actually have seen and confirm the content of these articles, either in paper form or in a reputable archive then yes, I don't see it as a problem to use them as an additional source if there are some solid sources connecting these to the current men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Due to the size of the discussion I am creating subsection #Menschenrechte below. Ranze (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We need to be very careful here, as context is very iportant. Plotkin's liberal pacifist League for Men's Rights (Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte), as mentioned in the University of Illinois reference [38] is clearly not talking the same "Men's Rights" that this article is about. Read about their interests - discussing fascism and marxism, their dangers etc. The context is clearly using the term as it used to be used (ie where we would now say civil rights or human rights). It is not relevant in this context.

Which leaves the Austrian League which at least is about "the endangered existence of men" which might actually be about the sort of "men's rights" that are discussed in this article. Do we have anymore info about them so we can confirm this. It is only a small footnote in one book so far. Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reyk, given the sources and your belief about the translation of the term, do you think the meetings from the 1930s in Germany, whatever they were called, should be on this page? If you don't, then this discussion is rather moot. I'd rather not get caught up in a technical discussion of primary versus secondary sources, but I will note this - if a NYT article was a reference, but five years from that date a scholarly volume was published, that NYT article should pretty much be removed as obsolete bar perhaps appended to the phrase "The NYT published an article in 2008.^[1]"

Anyway, getting to specifics - does anyone have any comments about my suggestion for a brief, single-sentence summary? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the German and Austrian ones are not suitable because "Menschenrechte" translates better to "Rights of people" than "Mens rights". I can't comment on the French one because I do not speak French. The "Aequitas" one looks superficially OK to me since the article titles from the Chicago Daily News and New Castle News articles strongly suggest that mens rights are the topic, and I also cannot see any reason to suppose that these sources are unreliable. But I would like to see the actual text of the articles just to be sure. I agree with you that one or two sentences is probably enough. Reyk _YO! 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I do speak French and the phrase "droits de l'homme" means human rights, not men's rights. That's why francophone men's rights activist use the term "masculisme". So there is a problem with that information too. But as you say, and as I commented above too, we need to see the actual text of these articles from a reputable source.Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am ok with the single sentence proposed by WLU under the condition that the sentence is supported by secondary, preferably scholarly, sources. I'm not sure if a 2009 masters thesis [39] on the men's rights movement in Vienna qualifies but it places the mrm in the context of antifeminist responses to the women's movement of the interwar period. There is also a scholarly article which argues that the men's rights movement in the United States is basically a contemporary version of antifeminist reactions to feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century [40]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That article is from 1987 and deals primarily with the early masculism movement .I don`t see how it can be considered relevant to the modern mens rights movement nor do i see the parallel between an anti feminist movement that wished to return to traditional roles and the mens rights movement which rejects the traditional role of protector of provider(see Warren Farrell's book the myth of male power)and wishes to free men from their gender roles. 50.65.69.206 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Menschenrechte

To continue a more specific line of conversation, some rebuttals to Slp1's statements:

There is a big difference between the status of newspapers writing about yesterday's news, and using 90-year-old newspaper articles. Think about it; as just one example, whereas we have a good idea about the reliability of The New York Times, The Sun, and The National Enquirer and can appropriately judge how much weight and credit to give their articles, we can't easily do the same for newspapers in Austria and Germany 90 years ago.

I disagree, because we can leave it up to the viewers of Wikipedia how much credit/weight they want to give to the statements of newspapers. It should not be our perogative to declare the A paper is better than B paper and censor B paper, but simply to accurately cite where statements came from. It's unlikely papers were simply making up organizations that did not exist, and we have verified from multiple sources similar details.

we need historians to put the information in context. Wikipedia policy and guideline pages repeatedly discuss newspapers are primary sources in a historical context.

I think that's already been done, but it doesn't hurt to cite the sources that scholars themselves are referring to. It is one thing to note a scholar's interpretation and attribute it to them, it is another to just blindly present scholars' opinions as facts.

Research papers published in journals (feminist or not) are not primary, but secondary, sources. (see WP:PSTS). And like it or not we do give them more weight.

More weight is fine, where it exists, but if all we have are primary sources, we should still use them. We can use secondary sources to shape how primary-attained info is presented, but we shouldn't pretend that organizations never existed if they did exist. They will be lost to history if they are not recorded.

Given what you quite correctly said about the meaning of "Menschenrechte" in the context of the two "Liga fur Menschenrechte", and my own researches into their history, at the very least that website is misrepresenting the focus of these organizations.

The German Deutsche Liga fur Menschenrechte (German League for Men's Rights) mentioned in An American in Hitler's Berlin that existed 1914-1933 was not anything I got from some blog. It may be that the person who translate AAIHB mistranslated human as man, I suppose.

I think is a different organization from the Vienna (Austria) organization founded in 1926 (12 years after the German one) which split into the 'Equitas' and 'Justita' factions.

There might have been affiliation between the two in some form, however, seeing as how the Austrian group died off around the time the German one did.

I do speak French and the phrase "droits de l'homme" means human rights, not men's rights

Wiktionary lists 'homme' meaning man. When I type 'homme' into Google Translate, 'man' is the first result I get. 'Person' and 'Human being' are secondary results. While I can accept that 'human rights' is the modern meaning of 'droits de l'homme', I don't think that necessarily means that it meant that during the turn of the 19th century. I think it is plausible this phrase meant 'men's rights' at the time.

This makes me wonder if the same is the case of Mensch and man. The attitudes of the time in such a location may have attributed it to men moreso than women (not saying that's right, just that it coudl be so) and if papers were reporting it to mean men's rights, we should convey that interpretation even if we modernly disagree and claim it was for humans.

The meaning of Mensch may have something to do with the sexist split between Equitas and Justita. Ranze (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable

Regarding content at WP:PSTS being used to prevent reference inclusion:

1. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
2. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

What are the standards for 'close to' ? How much later does something have to be? The newspaper articles and books sound a heck of a lot like secondary sources to me. These reporters were not directly involved, one was a woman writing about an organization that excludes women.

primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia

primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge

interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so

What I wrote pertaining the sources being labelled as primary (which I believe are arguably secondary) was not what I believe to be an interpretation, analysis, evaluation or synthesis. I believe it was indeed simply a straightforward description of facts. Is this being disputed? Ranze (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision: "while others have disagreed"

I think circumcision deserves its own section, rather than being lumped under health, but mostly I'm trying to get clarity on the phrase "while others have disagreed". Are these "others" part of the men's rights movement? In other words, are we talking about a debate within men's rights (using quotes from people discussing the issue in a men's rights context), or a debate between men's rights and people with other motivations in other contexts? I don't know how to view the articles being cited. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Portal and Proposal for WikiProject

I discovered Portal:Men's rights has existed for years now, and have proposed a WikiProject to go along with it. I think it might be more useful to co-ordinate efforts to improve articles, find sources, etc. using things like that, considering all the traffic this talk page gets. Especially when it comes to establishing the history of MRM pre-70s which seems to have hit a snag. Ranze (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I support and would contribute. However, I recommend that the article be titled "Men's rights and issues" in that some concerns are not specifically related to "rights," per se (but to expectations, social roles, etc.). Memills (talk)

1RR ANI topic

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Problematic lede

The lede reads:

"The men's rights movement (MRM) is a human rights movement, part of the larger men's movement, focused specifically on issues of perceived discrimination and inequalities faced by men."

"human rights movement" is not appropriate: it is unsourced; reliable sources do not describe it as such; it is the MRAs themselves who label it like that; it is not recognized internationally as a human rights movement.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A1C1 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the "human rights movement" part and write: "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a strand of the larger men's movement, focused specifically..." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth,

• The Tarrant reference [41], clearly states that the Men Right's Movement is a Hate Movement. Shira Tarrant is a World renowned scholar and commentator on gender politics and this statement is in a scholarly publication edited by her, published by Routledge Press [42], who have a reputation for fact checking.

• I also think we should mention in the lede that

"The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement....."

which is from the SPLC reference [43]. The SPLC as you well know is unequivocally reliable in its Intelligence Reports; it has been used by law enforcement and cited by academics. The fact that men’s rights movement and fathers’ rights movement are synonymous is a pretty significant point. A fact I was not aware of, which is a testimony to the remarkably informative nature of the SPLC. They truly are an important and revelationary source.

• Perhaps most significantly we learn, and I paraphrase from the SPLC source

"The Men's Movement includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists. Further more the SPLC say they take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."

Ignoring the racist over tones of the final sentence, this information from the SPLC is very significant and surely should be incorporated somewhere in the lede. I hope you will support me in this.

CSDarrow (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Sonicyouth86's proposal:

• • "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a strand of the larger men's movement, focused specifically..."

is appropriate for the lede.

Also, men's rights is not the same as father's rights, as was mentioned above, though they are quite related to each other.

A section "Views on men's rights movement" would be appropriate, or possibly the section "Criticism" should be expanded, though "Criticism" sections are not ideal. If nobody objects, I'll remove "human rights movement" from lede.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A058 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

2A02:..A058, Concerning

"Also, men's rights is not the same as father's rights, as was mentioned above, though they are quite related to each other."

Our personal opinions on this matter is not of interest to Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. The SPLC has declared them the same group. The SPLC are a reliable source and the same article is being cited as reliable in support of other statements in the page. As such we can't but other record the fact that Father's and Men's rights groups are the same; regardless of how we personally feel about this. Similarly the Tarrant reference is a reliable scholarly source that states the Men's Rights Movement is a hate movement, we must record this. Don't you agree?

CSDarrow (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CSDarrow. Other editors have been very clear that we are not allowed to use our own judgement or cherry pick when to follow wikipedia policies. I propose we change the lede to "The men's rights movement (MRM), also known as the father's rights movement, is a hate group consisting of mail-order bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists."Rgambord (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this suggestion at all, which both misrepresents the sources and the arguments made above.

• Per WP:Undue while the SPLC is a good and notable source, especially for its own attributed opinion on subjects, but sources like this don't trump academic scholarly sources which tend to see the fathers' rights as a separate (but related) men's movement, which emerged from the larger men's rights movement.[44][45]
• As I pointed out above the source doesn't say that the men's rights movement includes those interested in mail-order brides etc, but that the "men's movement" does. One could argue that this info should be included on the men's movement page- but only as their attributed opinion, which is all that has been done here, not given in WP's editorial voice.
• The Tarrant source is discussing the SPLC material and doesn't even say that the MRMis a hate group, but that the SPLC included them in their exposes of such groups. You would need a stronger source to make this point. However, as has also been pointed out above, we know for a fact that the SPLC doesn't and hasn't described the men's rights movement as a hate group. Specifically: "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement".[46]
• And finally, per WP:LEDE the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Not introduce new (and in this case very questionable) material.

To be honest given the past edits and opinions of these editors I doubt very much that they truly want this material included. This appears to be a pointy suggestion and as such is most unhelpful to the development of this artcle.Slp1 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Slp1. I think you are dead wrong on each point. Also WP:GOODFAITH? CSDarrow (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you think that the SPLC's opinion should be on men's movement, then? So, you still don't see anything wrong with its inclusion? Nothing about credibility, bias, or the fact that it's an unsubstantiated and vile attack on a group of people? You really don't see a problem here with the way wikipedia editors have been applying the rules to neuter this article (and others concerning men's rights, privilege, and human rights, in general)? You really don't see an issue with defining something by what its detractors pronounce about it? I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time, but only recently have I come to focus on articles concerning human rights. I've noticed a very obvious feminist slant in the application of rules, consensus, and editing across the board on these pages. Before you ask, I see no reason to take any of this to any sort of arbitration or noticeboard, because it's a systematic problem on wikipedia that such noticeboards will not be able to solve, and which none of the editors on here will admit to. It seems the only ones who can see the bias are those who do not share in it.

• Now, towards the section we are discussing here. Men's rights are, by simple definition, a subset of human rights, and therefore the men's rights movement is a human rights movement. Contrary to your opinion, this doesn't need to be sourced, because we, the editors, are not robots, and we are capable of making basic logical inductions. If you need me to cite a rule, I refer you to WP:IARRgambord (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no reliable source that classifies MRM as a "human rights movement". This has to be removed from the lede.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCC2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe views

The Child custody section ends with a fringe view of a very fringe actor (being the head of a political party that got 0.04% of the vote doesn't make his opinion relevant). I'd suggest removing that from the article. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You deleted a sourced sentence without awaiting consensus. And please refrain from arbitrary removals of people's comments [47][48].

The problem with the section as I see it is that it contains only two reliable sources that mention the men's rights movement: the Messner book and the article that Rgambord deleted. The Sheldon & Collier article deals with the fathers' rights movement and US Department of Commerce document doesn't mention the mrm. The conference paper ("Second Annual Male Studies Conference") fails WP:RS and doesn't belong in this article. The remaining information is mostly original research that should be removed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Hobbit and Rgmbord. Also WP:BEBOLD? CSDarrow (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to wait for consensus. I removed Sonic19's comments which could easily have gotten him banned, and the second edit wasn't a deletion. Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.) Rgambord (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dense", "confused"[49], "People like you disgust me", "you should be ashamed of yourself" [50]. Comments you made about two editors today because they have edited this page. Let's see if the patrolling admins think this is uncivil. Oh and yes, you need to wait for WP:Consensus and no, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR aren't optional and this is why sources [51] that do not discuss the men's rights movement do not belong in this article.

The original wording of Rgambord's comments was [52]. Decide for yourself if my comment would have gotten me banned. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Synth

Rgambord (talk · contribs) restored a source and added another one that does not mention the men's rights movement [53]. This is an article about the men's rights movement. If you want to add custody statistics, child custody might the place to do it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Rgambord added another source [54]: http://thomasjamesball.com/thomas-james-ball-the-mrm.html Does anyone want to argue that that source is reliable? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of marital rape reference

This is linked later section on rape, with a generalized quote pertaining to that broader section. A repeated reference to it was made earlier in a nonspecific way in regard to marital rape. While it is addressed:

The new law is far-reaching. A spouse or live-in partner found guilty of any kind of abuse, marital rape, demanding a dowry, refusing to let a wife work or forcing her to watch pornography faces a year in jail, a fine of 20,000 rupees (HK$3,452), or both.

The problem is that that reference did not actually identify where Men's rights activist are opposing a law on marital rape. That needs to be clarified. Besides, one of the original 4 references (they were bunched together, I put them next to the name of each nation they pertain to) already addresses India, so we don't need to list re-list one we already have later to double up on India.

That said, the reference that is there, "why MRAs are against inclusion of marital rape" is somewhat questionable in reliability. For example, here is how it addresses the issue:

mens rights activist Captain Arun Sethi said that this is a draconian law that will violate the already shrinking space of mens rights in marriage.

“Men have been dubbed as perpetrators of rape, dowry, sexual harassment but today our women have been so over empowered without checks and balances that they are insidiously greedy and unacceptable,” he said.

"For example Section 498(A) of IPC gives the right to sadistically throw the entire family to jail which often include women themselves", he added.

The last line was missing quotes around the attributed phrase so I added those. Nothing in this statement regarding the MRA clarifies how he supports marital rape though.

I would oppose the restoration of that link to support the idea that Indian MRAs oppose marital rape until we can, via excerpt, clarify which portion of it supports that. Ranze (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the citations for MRM support for Marital Rape are extremely thin, I will be taking them to appropriate notice board within the week.CSDarrow (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the sentences these sources actually cite. It does not say "Men's rights activists support marital rape". It says that they have opposed marital rape legislation. The sources you mention above specifically support that they have and they do, and it is also trivial to find other (much less reliable sources) saying the same thing, some much more bluntly and less attractively.[55][56][57][58] [59][60][61][62]

Look, guys, what I see here is that you want to remake this article into one that reflects "your" version of the men's rights movement - the one that reflects your (moderate) views. I salute you personally for the fact that you don't want the movement to be misogenist or to oppose marital rape legislation or any of the less pleasant aspects about some sectors of the movement. But the fact is that this is a worldwide movement, and it does contain a wide variety of people with a wide variety of views. A significant number of those subscribing to the movement subscribe to views that you - I am sure - don't hold. But the point of this article is not to make it over to "your" version of the movement, but to cover all of what the reliable sources say about it. And from your perspective this focus on reliable sources is actually a good thing -though there will be some bumps- because just think how the article would look if Angry Harry, or Paul Elam or Bob Allen or Virag R Dhulia attempted to make over this article in their conception of the movement.Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it can be mentioned in the Indian section but not as to represent "This is how all mens' rights activists think, they're bad people." That's typical in Wikipedia, perhaps a bit similar if things like "Some feminists want to cut up men" were emphasized in the feminism article. --Pudeo' 01:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pudeo, this isn't just about Indian MRAs. And it isn't about being bad either. Whether it is bad or good depends on what your personal views are: don't you see that if Virag R Dhulia or any other MRA who oppose marital rape legislation came here, they would be proud and happy that this material is included. WP isn't here to judge whether this is good or bad. We just state the facts, that some MRAs have opposed marital rape legislation. It's a fact, not a judgement. Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"The guys" aren't trying to make their version of the MRA, they are trying to stop people making it into their version of the MRA using the fringe. Or using lies such as suggesting Warren Farrel is a rape apologist. (also they aren't "the guys", they are editors) CSDarrow (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Split

Building a bit on the previous topic, we have sections that make broad implications about the movement as a whole (worldwide) based on isolated advocation by specific individuals. For example, the 3 things stating US/UK/India MRAs promote marital rape is based on 3 individuals, taken out of context, who don't even support major organizations. I think Wikipedia would benefit from covering individual organizations specifically, and by addressing this on a national level.

To look at the example made by the sister topic of feminism, in Category:Feminism by country and it's subcategories, we have:

1. Feminism in Canada
2. Feminism in the People's Republic of China
3. Feminism in Egypt
4. Feminism in France
5. Feminism in Greece
6. Feminism in India
7. Feminism in Ireland
8. Feminism in Italy
9. Feminism in Japan
10. Feminism in Nepal
11. Feminism in New Zealand
12. Feminism in Norway
13. Feminism in Poland
14. Feminism in Russia
15. Feminism in Thailand
16. Feminism in the United States
17. Feminism in the United Kingdom

Used Special:PrefixIndex for some of these.

While there are some other country links they are redirects to other pages, but here we can see seventeen links to pages dedicated to exploring the issue from a national perspective. For Wikipedia to be unbiased, shouldn't we also be splitting our coverage on a national basis?

This page should be dedicated to discussing the MRM from a broader world-wide perspective. For example, if there are any international organizations, or co-ordinated efforts between groups of different nations.

Selectively pointing out fanatic groups in India and the States, or a single self-proclaimed MRM society in the UK doesn't seem like good article-making here. It smacks of a bias, reaching desperately for anyone who supports an extremist viewpoint. The lack of mention for MRM organizations who support the criminalization of marital rape (or those who don't weigh in on the issue, due to it being considered not even worth addressing, as only fanatics would want to legalize it) is telling, that the issue is only being viewed in a slanted weigh. Ranze (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Specifically, in order to improve the article, care should be taken to avoid language which could lead hasty readers to submit to the logical fallacy of composition, which "arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" (wiki).

Reporting a position (say, opposition to marital rape law) that may be indisputably true of any given individual or sub-group of the Men's Rights Movement (say, in India) in the words "The Men's Rights Movement opposes marital rape law" fails to make the distinction between the sub-group(s) for which this is true, and any other sub-group(s) for which this is not true, and also between the movement as a whole, in so far as the position is not held by the movement as a whole (should the movement as a whole hold this position, this would need to be be documented by citing reliable sources)and so may lead to a mistaken impression about any other sub-group(s) and about the movement as a whole. (A similar analysis, btw, might be seen to apply to statements of the form "Scholars have criticised the MRM...".) Presenting logical fallacies as information would be a disservice to readers who come here for information; I hope nobody advocates that.

T 83.109.180.221 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See above. What I see here is that you would like to remove material you don't like to another article, and leave this one clear of controversial material. That's called a WP:POVFORK and is not allowed here.

Please note those cited are not individual but are typicall the leaders or spokespersons of men's rights organizations.

If you have any information about MRM organizations who support the crimimalization of marital rape, or any that have called out their brethren for opposing it then I would absolutely 100% support including this information. Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Slp1:Stop flaming,the MRM movement in India is more "family" based and traditional and besides that marital rape isn't legal in most countrys(most of which are western)your assertion is based upon ideology and holds no weight.That piece of information is SPECIFIC to the indian mens rights movement and should reflect such in an article about Mens rights in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC) But it isn't specific to the men's rights in India: there are several sources to US-based MR groupings and prominent individuals including Warren Farrell- also a UK group. And it isn't a judgement either. See above. Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and this would not be original research or synthesis? Or is there a reliable sorurce that asserts that "the MRM opposes marital rape laws"? T 83.109.180.221 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interview with Warren Farrell clarifying what was actually said in the book.The claim that Warren Farrell is a rape apologist is one of the most circulated lies against the MRM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBjaz7uNHnA

8:17-9:25 Metalhead498 03:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs)

The attack against Warren Farrell is one of the worse things I have seen in years by the anti-MRA crowd. Frankly I think it should be mentioned on this page. In fact, a section showing examples of anti-MRA tactics and rhetoric in general should be constructed. Some of it is utterly vile. CSDarrow (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The "backlash" against the MRM is notable and deserves its own subsection. Memills (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead.

For a source to be used in the lead or have a section devoted to it alone, it should be significantly notable and the comments significantly satisfy WP:UNDUE. The SPLC [63] may be respected on many matters, but they also have received criticism and their opinions should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Due to bias and topic ignorance the SPLC are not notable commentators on the Men's Rights or allied movements. Moreover the points they make fail WP:UNDUE . The sources in question are [64] [65] [66].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lead and the Crtisism Section [67] should be removed. Unless cogent counter argument can be presented I will do just that. My expanded reasons are as follows:-

(1) Notability

Due to bias and ignorance of the topic the SPLC are not a notable commentators on the Men's Rights or allied movements.

The sourcess show both ignorance of the topic, eg Conflating Men's & Fathers rights,

• "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals."

and obvious bias in language e.g. phrases like

• " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates"

• The citation [68] contains the word "Manosphere" in the URL, which is a pejorative for the MRM.

• "Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped."

Irrespective of what you think of Register-Her.com every woman listed as "lying about" has in fact been convicted of that exact crime. The Tarrant reference includes inaccuracies and clearly highly partisan language

• "The aggressively hostile misogynist strategies of so-called Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Activists are serious enough that the [SPLC] has included these groups in their expose on American hate groups."

(2) Undue Weight

The violations of WP:UNDUE of these entries are many. However these together alone are sufficient. imo.

• The commentary refers to the N. America alone.

• Their views are not notability on the subject. (see above)

• They are referring to mostly fringe elements.

• They have not defined or demonstrated Misogyny. Let alone shown it is repeated and long term behavior. They are using the word as a pejorative.

CSDarrow (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Not only is this a violation of NPOV, but your characterization of the criticism is in error. Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. He does not speak for or represent the SPLC and he needs to be attributed correctly per our best practices on attributing sources. Your threat to remove the material appears to be bordering on intentional disruption, and your tendentious use of this talk page and the noticeboards to push your singular POV has run afoul of our policies and guidelines. My best recommendation is that you should remove this article from your watchlist and stop editing it immediately. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As you well know RSN has firmly declared that the Goldwag was speaking for the SPLC, [69]. Similarly if Goldwag is an expert in organized hate and extremist groups, why should his opinions on Men's Rights be of note. Especially as he does not know the difference between the Men Rights Movement and Fathers Rights Movement. ::: CSDarrow (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, RSN has "declared" nothing of the sort. RSN is an informal gathering of amateurs who show up to help editors with questions. They make no official pronouncements nor do they guarantee accuracy of any kind. You asked a loaded question in bad faith on the noticeboard, a question that RSN is not equipped to deal with. You did this in order to game this article and provide a false justification for removing the content. This is a very common tactic with POV pushers, so if you think you were being clever or original you can forget it. We've seen this dozens of times before you ever showed up, so think again. On Wikipedia, we attribute expert sources by author and publication, in this case "Arthur Goldwag" of the "Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report" or of the "Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog", depending on which source you are citing. Goldwag does not work for the SPLC nor is he a fellow or an employee. Goldwag is a journalist and author who specializes in organized hate and extremist groups and his notability exists completely independently of the SPLC and in fact, has no connection to it. We cite him as an expert and we cite the publication. We do not in any way speculate if he speaks for the SPLC as such questions are outside the remit of our role as editors. What we do is insure the most accurate attribution possible and that's the extent of our role. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation for this [70]. CSDarrow (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is obvious. If you continue to disrupt this article and any other noticeboards to push your POV, I'll have no choice to file a report. Again, if you think you are being clever by trying to game the system to align with your fringe POV you are a little late. We've seen editors do this many times and they've all been topic banned and/or blocked. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified support- I do agree that the views of an advocacy organization focusing on the United States are not prominent or global enough to be given pride of place in the lead, but I do not agree that they should be removed altogether. I'm also not a fan of CSDarrow's histrionics. As I understand it, DSDarrow feels that the article seems to be written by, and sourced to, the MRM's ideological opponents, who then describe the MRM in unflattering and dishonest ways. Meanwhile, sources that do not condemn the MRM are excluded on one pretext or another. I have some sympathy for that point of view- I think it is important to ensure the article does not become a hatchet job. It has been in the past and, without vigilance, will be again. That doesn't mean I like all the yelling and carrying on CSDarrow has been doing. However, trying to get a person to leave with bullying and threats because they loudly and obnoxiously hold a contrary view is probably not a good thing. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)