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)

No, the SPLC did not categorize men's right activism as a hate group. Stop lying that lie.184.167.250.33 (talk) 18:16, 26 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)

My recent reversion

I just wanted to explain why I reverted this IP edit so quickly[20]. 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 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)

• It's a POV weasel word, no doubt about it. It's not "perceived", we have factual data in custody rates and prison sentences, the legality of male vs female genital mutilation, etc. You can argue about if it's caused by misandry or another effect of the patriarchy, if it's irrelevant compared to discrimination against women, etc - that's not the point. It's proven to exist, and sources are not immune from WP policy. We can quote Gavanas et al using that word, but our words must be neutral. WP:ALLEGED also applies here. There's no valid reason to include that word, there's every reason to remove it. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:17, 12 May 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. [21][22], 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. [23] --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.[24][25] 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 [26] 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 [27] 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 [28]. --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 [29], 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 [30], 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 [31]. 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.[32][33]
• 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".[34]
• 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 [35][36].

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"[37], "People like you disgust me", "you should be ashamed of yourself" [38]. 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 [39] that do not discuss the men's rights movement do not belong in this article.

The original wording of Rgambord's comments was [40]. Decide for yourself if my comment would have gotten me banned. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Synth in the child custody section

Rgambord (talk · contribs) restored a source and added another one that does not mention the men's rights movement [41]. 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 [42]: 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)

The Collier & Sheldon doesn't mention the men's rights movement either. The only source in the section that discusses child custody in relation to the men's rights movement is the Messner source. The conference paper by Kumar (Second Annual Male Studies Conference) is a primary source and should be excluded. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and remove the passages and sources that do not discuss the men's rights movement and rewrite the section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

[43]. I also moved two sentences about men's rights rhetoric to the child custody section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 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.[44][45][46][47] [48][49][50][51]

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)

Nobody here has in any way suggested that Farrell is a rape apologist. Surely you can see that opposing marital rape legislation is not the same as supporting rape? People can have genuine and legitimate reasons for the former position, and these are detailed in the article.

Since the distinction seems to cause a perennial confusion, how about we rephrase as follows, "Some men's rights activists, while opposing rape and acknowledging that rape does occur within marriage, have opposed marital rape legislation....... I'd have to check for sources for the specific details, but from what I recall there are reliable sources for something like this. Slp1 (talk) 20:17, 28 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 8:17-9:25Metalhead498 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)

There better be rock-solid references stating that this supposed attack is an attack on this movement before such a topic can even be discussed here. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The comparision to other articles on other topics is covered by WP:WAX and/or WP:OSE. The issue of there needing to be articles about local movements needs to be based on sources not other topics on wikipedia. Furthermore you have it in reverse Ranze, even if there were local articles they would not be split from here they would be summarised here as per WP:SUMMARY - this article is top of the tree/pyramid in the men's rights movement topic - all the most notable material on that topic goes here - even if it was covered in article son national movements. This due to the hierarchical structure of wikipedia wp:categories. For this reason I'm bolding removing the tag--Cailil ^talk 15:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead.

(edit: This whole argument below still holds if "SPLC" is replaced with "person or persons responsible for the sources") CSDarrow (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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 [52] 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 independent commentators on the Men's Rights or allied movements. Moreover the points they make fail WP:UNDUE . The sources in question are [53] [54] [55].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lead and the Criticism Section [56] should be removed. They are no more notable than any other critics. 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 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 men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists..."

• The citation [57] contains the word "Manosphere" in the URL, which is a pejorative for the MRM. The term is used repeatedly in [58].

• "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 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, together these 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 fringe elements, ie see "aimed at the hardline fringe", here [59].

• 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.

Summary The SPLC's opinions are being presented as if they carry special weight; as they might with regards to other issues. The SPLC has demonstrated they are both partisan and not well informed on Men's Right issues. As such they are not an objective or respected independent voice on this matter. The SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics by having content in the lead or a section devoted to them. Especially when WP:UNDUE is considered.

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, [60]. 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 [61]. 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)

Patrolling sysop comment Let me just throw this out here: If I were to have to make a determination on whether a particular user were editing against a consensus, I would come to the conclusion that the discussion at WP:RSN received insufficient input and failed to reach a consensus among disinterested parties and RSN regulars because the discussion was dominated by the parties already involved here.--v/r - TP 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

TP, All of the uninvolved editors, ie little green rosetta, GRuban, Fladrif, where pretty emphatic it was the SPLC not Goldwag. They produced well argued cases, especially GRuban. I does not matter to me who it is, the SPLC, Goldwag or some incorporeal combination. I just wanted to know who I need to address. If it is Goldwag or a combination I would say the case for removal from the lead is even stronger. You can take my whole argument and replace "SPLC" with "person or persons" and it still holds.CSDarrow (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Except, that is completely wrong (Goldwag is a writer who was published by the SPLC due to his expertise—he does not work for nor does he represent the SPLC) and it's not how we attribute sources. For someone as "experienced" as GRuban claims to be, he seems to be completely unaware of one of our most important content guidelines and NPOV policies which direct us to carefully attribute opinions in the text to particular sources and to avoid neutrality violations while using in-text attribution. GRuban isn't just wrong, he's ignoring our policies and guidelines. As editors we don't do guesswork as to who is speaking for whom, we default to simply citing who said what (the author) and noting the source where it was published (the publication). I'm not sure what kind of game GRuban is playing, but he exceeded the remit of editorial responsibility. What we do is insure the most accurate attribution possible and that's the extent of our role. We don't spend time guessing who the author might be speaking for or whether he's representing someone other than himself. The general rule that applies across the board is to use the form "topic T has been described by author A in source S as opinion O." Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 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)

Reyk, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am not attempting to censor the critics of the MRM. What I am claiming is that the SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics. They are not an objective or respected independent voice on this matter; as they might be on other issues. As such they do not deserve placement in the lead or a section all to themselves. I don't think this is unreasonable or histrionic. Your qualified support is appreciated. CSDarrow (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Goldwag does not work for any advocacy organization. He's an expert on organized hate and extremist groups who works as an author and journalist. The SPLC published his article in their magazine and another on their blog. His notability in this area comes from publishing many different articles and books, none of which have anything to do with the SPLC. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support - for the reasons I, and others, have noted (especially notability and WP:LABEL). And, by the way, let me commend CSDarrow (talk) for persevering here, and in supporting WP policies here, despite ad hominems, bullying, and threats by those pushing an anti-MRM POV. Memills (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Manipulating noticeboards in order to create a false consensus to support a false rationale for removing content in violation of the NPOV is topic ban worthy and/or blockable. That's the kind of disruption you are supporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - given that the SPLC names specific groups I'd have no problem with this not being in the lede. However it should be in the body. That said there should not be a criticisms section - all of that information should be merged into the body of the article where relevant.
  Furthermore, TP is correct RE: the RSN thread[62] - it was down in my view to a good faith error on CSDarrow's part in the way he formulated the thread. It would be better to wait and allow more time for outsiders to have input there with a streamlined discussion *before* declaring consensus one way or the other--Cailil ^talk 18:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not my evaluation. The un-involved editor GRuban, who seems an experienced notice board contributor, uses the phrase "...the evident consensus (as Wikipedia defines the term) reached here..". The RSN case has nothing to do with the discussion here, it was in a passing comment made to Viriditas. CSDarrow (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• What Cailil says. I'm not a big fan of citing SPLC and other such advocacy groups in the lead (it lends their statements undue weight), though the article certainly needs to include it, and the lead needs a general statement on "controversy" or whatever it's to be called. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the criticism in question can be found in many reliable sources and is quite common in the literature. Goldwag does not work for nor speak for the SPLC, so this red herring that he does needs to put to rest. In other words, even if you eliminated Goldwag and the SPLC, the criticism is still mainstream. For example, the criticism that the MRM is misogynistic is found in many published works. This campaign to attack Goldwag or the SPLC is an intentional distraction. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Many reliable sources discuss the men's rights movement in connection to misogyny. Clatterbaugh's Contemporary perspectives on masculinity, for example, states "Woman hating is pervasive among men's rights advocates" (p. 88) and "The men's rights perspective, for all its talk about equality and destroying traditional roles, often seems to have taken an antifeminist and even misogynist backlash stance. It frequently conflates 'feminist' with 'woman', and expresses hatred of both" (p. 77). Clatterbaugh cites authors like Richard Doyle and gives specific examples. Other sources include Theorizing masculinities (p. 162) or [63], [64], [65], [66] and so forth.
  I agree with Cailil that a separate criticisms section is bad form and that criticisms should be included in the body of the article where they are most relevant. The question is where do we put global critiques like the one by the SPLC and the sources I mentioned? I also agree with Drmies that a summary of the criticisms should be mentioned in the lead. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (op). The point being discussed here is that the SPLC's opinions are being presented as if they carry special weight; as they do with regards to other issues. For the reasons I have stated above, I feel the SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics by having content in the lead, or a section devoted to them. Especially when WP:UNDUE is considered. If people wish to discuss other matters then please start another section. Keeping things focused and on track will ultimately be more productive. CSDarrow (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please don't be patronizing. You may have noticed (see the thread below also) that's not simply one little thing--note the "organic whole" comment in the linked section on "criticism". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (op) I would further posit that the citations from the SPLC are so ill informed and so partisan, that their opinions on Men's Rights are of no worth. Apart from in support of the fact they have made statements with the aforementioned properties. CSDarrow (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel all interested parties have had time to contribute to this discussion. I think the SPLC material is patently in violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. No full consensus will be ever reached on this issue, as such i am invoking WP:BOLD and removing the material from the lead. I will remove the other material in 24hrs. If there is strong disagreement then we will require outside arbitration. CSDarrow (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry CSDarrow I object both to your declaration that the SPLC is not a reliable source - this is not the determination at the RSN board. There has *not* been a discussion about that. You did not ask about the reliability of the SPLC at RSN you asked to whom the remarks should be attributed. There is no basis for your determination of the SPLC's reliability either there at RSN or here in teh above. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove material--Cailil ^talk 15:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In which case I will prepare the submission for the appropriate noticeboard, all here will invited to respond. I am assuming you feel the SPLC material also satisfies WP:UNDUE. (Just out of interest, how are you connecting my recent RSN submission to this issue? They have nothing to do with each other.) CSDarrow (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, my agreement above with the removal from the lede is ONLY because the SPLC name specific organizations in their material. There would nothing wrong with removing the material in the lede for that reason - if there is consensus for it (which there might be if the process is given appropriate time). On the other hand, attempting to use the above discussion to declare the SPLC as unreliable is unacceptable. You raise the issue of reliability - you state that is a reason to remove but you haven't actually tested it. People here have not responded to it. And no the issue doesn't require outside "arbitration". We have uninvolved sysops patrolling here and a probation to keep editing within policy. The various mechanisms of dispute resolution (the boards etc) wont be used to create a different rules for this or any other article. Just stick to the consensus process that you opened above which is not yet complete - this thread is only 50 hours old, it should be given at least a week! And furthermore you (the person who opened the discussion) should not be closing the thread and declaring an outcome - ask one of the sysops to do that--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify your position on the SPLC material in the Criticism section [67]. I should also remind you of the 5th pillar of Wikipedia's WP:FIVE Pillars. I don't care what reasons the present SPLC material is removed for, so long as it is removed. I am not trying to set broader precedents that others may find distasteful. I profoundly disagree with you on the need for outside help is resolving this. CSDarrow (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow it is very clear that you want the material removed - but that's your issue not wikipedia's. We do have firm rules when it comes to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - they are non-negotiable (see the policy pages). A new standard for WP:RS will not be introduced here or elsewhere. My position above re: the criticism section is quite clear. The SPLC information is important and should be included in the article. However as is pointed out below in another thread the whole structure of this article needs revision inorder to come into line with NPOV - forking material off into a separate section violates NPOV.
Re: this discussion you need to allow other people have input into this 2 day old thread. You need to allow outsiders have the space to comment in order for a consensus to develop. Continually rebutting the answers to the question asked is not helpful in forming consensus, nor is your attempt at early closure - give it time. As I said above, you asked the question - it's not up to you to determine the outcome is. That should be done by someone who does not have an interest in the question (i.e someone who does not want the material kept or removed - i.e an uninvolved sysop). In short give it time--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cailil is correct in preventing any future reference to this discussion as pertains the reliability of SPLC as a source. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, Your post reinforces my opinion that this discussion has reached an impasse and we need the help of at least RSN. My guess is the SPLC sources will not fair well when exposed to the scrutiny of those at RSN. CSDarrow (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is incredibly clear from this discussion and that at the RSN that the SPLC material is both reliable and notable. Those speaking specifically in favour of this position, that the material should be included, in the body of the article at the least, are Viridatis, Reyk, Cailil, DrMies, SonicYouth86 and myself here, and GRuban made a similar comment about notability at RSN. In this thread and at RSN, the only person opposing the inclusion of the material anywhere this is you. It seems that by far the majority of editors agree that the material should stay in the body of the article. Just not in the lead.Slp1 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, Ad populum makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The reliability and noteworthiness of the SPLC is without a doubt, and no amount of rhetorizing will change that. You seem to want more out of this RfC than you asked for, and that won't happen. You may have consensus for its removal from the lead--but you should not be the one to decide on that since you started this. You are welcome to file at WP:RSN, but you'll be surprised at the result, no doubt. Now, since I was a participant in this discussion I won't lay an ArbCom-approved sanction on you, but an admin who wasn't involved in the discussion may--not just because of your a. premature closure of discussion (which is not at an impasse at all) and b. your edit to the article based on your conclusion, but mostly because c. you draw highly tendentious and incorrect conclusions from this discussion: your statement that "the SPLC material is patently in violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE" is entirely false, based on this discussion. In other words, you are again violating the terms of the article probation with your disruption. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a notice on WP:AN for an(other) admin to look into this. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, Clarification. Are you speaking to me as an Admin? CSDarrow (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I see a pretty obvious attempt at creating a false impression that consensus here is not to include the SPLC and Goldwag sources, which are certainly reliable by our policies. I'm having a very difficult time assuming good faith here, and I agree that CSDarrow's involvement has been disruptive. Whether the material is explcitly mentioned in the lede or summarized generically there is a question of weight. I believe that the opinions of the SPLC and Goldwag are weighty enough to be mentioned specifically there, though I would settle for a clear and neutral summary of the controversy. I strongly disagree that they should be removed from the article or buried deep down in a ghettoized criticism section. They are weighty enough and supported by enough other reliable sources to be prominently mentioned in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' per the same reasons given by others.--JasonMacker (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand on that?

• Oppose WP:RSN would quickly explain that the source is satisfactory for this topic. Pro-tip: Never start an analysis with "Due to bias and ignorance of the topic". Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't even know the name of Notice Board this was posted to or the one you posted in. CSDarrow (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly told here and in NPOV that there is a consensus to remove the material from lede. In fact I have been severely scolded for not realizing that fact. In the spirit of this consensus I will hence remove the material CSDarrow (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You were repeatedly scolded at WP:NPOVN for forum-shopping and for beating a dead horse, not for failing to realize that some notional settlement had concluded in your favor. The SPLC is a solid research organization and their identification of certain groups as misogynistic is valid. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh so there isn't a consensus, lol. I wonder what historians are going to say in 50yrs or a 100yrs time when they read this thread? CSDarrow (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, per WP:LEDE the Lead paragraph needs to summarize the article. Since there are plenty of criticisms of the movement in the article, these need to be reflected in the Lede. There is absolutely no consensus for a criticism-free lede (nor would it be in keeping with WP's policies and guidelines) but a fair number of editors do seem to agree that the current formulation, with the SPLC material front and centre of critical material in the lede may well be giving WP:UNDUE weight to it. If you want to improve the article as quickly as possible then do what I suggested at the WP:NPOVN: propose a couple of sentences to summarize the critical commentary of the movement that could be used to replace the SPLC material. I (or other editors) can also give it a shot when we have time, but my guess is it is more likely that you will be happier with the result if you propose something. Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment from user:blueboar over in NPOV Noticeboard makes sense to me

• " as I stated above, the lede should be generalized. While it is fine for the lede to say that the Men's rights movement has engendered criticism, it is inappropriate to highlight specific criticisms in the lede. Save the specifics for somewhere later in the article."

Making a specific critical point in the lede simply does not make sense to me. Especially imo from a lousy source. A simple statement that the MRM has garnered criticism from some quarters is appropriate and unarguably correct. If you want to do this fairly then you will get my support.

The MRM has garnered a lot of criticism from some quarters, of that there is absolutely no doubt, and this is a point of interest to a lede imo. I think it is of note that a large proportion of this criticism has come from certain quarters. I also think much of the criticism has come from those who hold opposing views, and not simply disinterested parties. I will throw the first iteration out

• The Men's Rights Movement has garnered criticism, in particular from pro-Feminist commentators. (or words to that effect)

With the sentence supported by appropriate citations. Some of the citations I see used on this page are simply awful. I am sure there are libraries full of first rate citations from reasoned, possibly highly critical, authors to support this statement. This is just a first stab.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the need for criticism in the lead, and for making a first stab at something to include. It is a start, but to be honest I don't think it really fits the bill. As you will see from WP:LEAD, this paragraph is supposed to summarize the content of the article not introduce new points. I don't see anywhere in the article that criticism has come "in particular from pro-Feminist commentators", and would need some very solid sources to justify its inclusion in the body of the article, let alone the lead. The first step needs to be finding those sources that you feel are out there.

However, in any case, and based on what I know, the statement is not accurate or even helpful. It is a trueism that "criticism has come from those who hold opposing views" as you put it. That's the nature of criticism, no? Additional, if a movement is set up in opposition to another movement (as the MRM has been set up in opposition to feminism) then in one sense all those who critique the movement are pro-feminist.

Until some solid sources are available for this proposed edit, we need to focus on what is actually in the article. Looking quickly at the article, the major criticisms I see at the moment are:

• Academics criticizing the conclusions drawn from research by MRA on domestic violence and paternity fraud issues.
• ... critiquing educational approaches recommended by MRM for boys as failing to recognize the heterogeneity of boys and their educational needs
• ....critiquing the MRM for not recognizing the cost to men's health of traditional perspectives and expectations of masculinity.
• .... and there is the charge of misogeny too, which a number of people seem to think should be in the lead - though hopefully they would be satisfied with something minimal.

This is what needs to be summarized in a couple of sentences. Do you want to give it another stab? Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This section

This section is forum shopping and borderline disruption, on an article on probation. I'm not going to sanction CSDarrow at this time, as I'm a bit late to the party and it appears that editors are trying to make this a useful discussion. However, I wish for editor feedback: Do any editors here feel this is a non-helpful section, which is preventing or slowing discussion of improvement of the article? CSDarrow, if you respond, you will be brief or you will receive sanctions. No long winded diatribes. That goes for everyone else too - brevity is the soul of wit... verbosity leads to sanctions. KillerChihuahua 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of forum shopping I suggest you research carefully what my posts here and to forums have been. Your accusation is serious and do so again, Admin or not, I will make a complaint to WP:ANI. CSDarrow (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

TBH KC it's not just this section its the use of other fora in combination with it. This has decentralized discussion, derailed the above consensus, obfuscated the issue and forced us all back over points that have already been discussed. The current NPOVN discussion has no consensus and is going round in circles and the RSN thread didn't get enough outside input. The truth is that ALL of these threads are holding up the real issue - the fact that the current article violates WP:STRUCTURE and needs to be rewritten around mainstream third part reliably sourced material on the movement, and not be a laundry list of its issues--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have itemized the other discussions rather than simply saying "Forum" - thanks for taking the time. That said, is this section currently helpful or no? It sounds like you feel it is not just forum, but also taking time away from working on the article to chase at abstractions which are not applicable. KillerChihuahua 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this section is really a problem, but the whole pattern of editing this whole topic is. I personally am sick to death of the whole thing. I have to hand a stack of good books and references for much the article, but unsurprisingly tend to find I have better things to do with my life than to engage in a massive timesink of doing the research for a section only to have to defend material that doesn't conform to other editors' personal conception of the men's rights movement, or is in any way critical. And I don't think I am the only one, whose editing is stifled by the atmosphere here. I note that SonicYouth has actually produced a bunch of very reliable scholarly sources also talking about the misogynistic sectors of the movement, so actually we don't have to argue about giving undue weight of the SPLC anymore, since there are lots of sources making the same point. But who wants to include this material and risk starting the next war of words, personal attacks, edit warring etc. I personally wonder if it would be good to go to ArbCom, at minimum to see if they think that turning the community sanctions into ArbCom ones would help. I think it would, as at least there would be a great forum (WP:AE) to take specific issues to, and we would not be relying on KC and TP to be around and up to speed. Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of WP:1RR limitation on reverts

After a community discussion, a consensus was reached determining that this article should be placed on a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. The discussion was closed here. This rule is now in effect, and expires September 20, 2013 unless lifted or extended by a community discussion. Please note that any editor that reverts more than one time in any 24 hour period is likely to be blocked for edit warring without warning. To view the complete list of editing restrictions for this article, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section is incomplete, by any standard.

I am not opposed to keeping it brief, but a few short sentences is hardly representative of the actual amount criticism from reliable sources against this movement. The article has been whittled down and what is left in this section hardly covers the breadth of the SPLC's criticism, let alone other criticism. Criticism which we ought to keep up-to-date; what is here does not reflect the surge within the last year. Due to the SPLC's prestige in the area of research on hate movements and its involvement with law enforcement agencies (including unprecedented historical influence in the American legal system), their criticism warrants more weight in this article. Furthermore, the SPLC didn't say the movement merely displays "misogynistic tendencies," it stated the movement was: "...an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations." It went on to criticize the enormity of hatred against women found in the main wing of the current men's rights movement (online activism), saying: "What is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." Emphasis mine. Regarding online fora (which even the movement leaders claim is their strongest area of activity, as noted by its affectionately-dubbed "Manosphere" moniker) the report says: "Many are quick to endorse violence against women," and goes on to state: "For some, it’s more than just talk. […] That kind of violence continues right up to the present." Should we really not include this information in the CRITICISM section? Information which is spread out over three separate articles from the SPLC, not just limited to Arthur Goldwag's article as claimed here? As I stated previously, this is just the SPLC. It does not include any of the further examples of criticism which ought to be added within reason for a well-rounded article. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, criticism should be gathered together into a single section as is the norm on most pages, eg Facism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Feminism, Marxism, Radical_feminism, Putinism, Anarchism, Neoconservatism, Libertarianism, Anti-globalization movement all have separate criticism sections. Strangely Conservatism seems above scrutiny.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, the opposite of what you say is true. On Wikipedia, we avoid criticism sections, preferring to merge criticism into its respective context within the body of the article. That you found articles which deviate from best practice doesn't mean we copy their bad examples, it means they need to be fixed. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested from what you formed that opinion. I am serious. CSDarrow (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. CSDarrow (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, that's an essay that expands on our NPOV policy, namely WP:STRUCTURE, but also draws upon WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede again

I see that the discussion at the section above about the lede appears to be abandoned; but "human rights movement" has to be removed from the lede - there is no reliable source describing it like that. A change has been suggested above, but it has not been implemented.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BA7 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion concerning the lead has not been abandoned. Time is being given for all interested to contribute. CSDarrow (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issue

It seems like people are trying their hardest to turn this article into a total hackjob as a NPOV issue is coming up again in the lead.The criticisms by feminist academics has already been noted in their appropriate sections.The addition of this sentence in the lead is a creates bias by tipping the article towards supporting a specific perspective and doesn't allows for independent assessment of the content by the readers(later on in the article).

"The movement's claims about gender symmetry in domestic violence, the extent of paternity fraud and the reasons for men's poorer health have been disputed by academics. The movement's approaches to boys' education has been critiqued as failing to recognize the heterogeneity of boys"

Whats really being said is "academics(gives no mention that most if not all criticism comes from feminists) say that their arguments have no basis....but now that you know that academics have disputed their claims...you can decide if you want to hear their arguments" .Evidence is disproven/negated before it is even presented.

Metalhead498 05:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all the scholarly sources in the article were written by feminists. More importantly, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. You're welcome to add reliable scholarly sources that disagree with the sources that you consider feminist. Moreover, the lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. I find your argument that editors have been trying "turn this article into a total hackjob" unconvincing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sonicyouth that it is by no means feminist academics who critiqued the men's rights movement and their research. For example, Gelles, who wrote some of the research widely cited by the MRM regarding gender symmetry, has written "Self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." Several others are cited in the article too. And as SY says, we look for the best sources, not neutral ones; at the moment, just as with cold fusion, homeopathy, holocaust denial, the mainstream academic viewpoint is not too kind to the men's rights movement. On all the pages I cited, editors regularly complain that it is not fair that unfriendly/biased/wrong academic sources are being used. But that's not the way that this encyclopedia works.

WP:LEAD.The lead there to summarize the text, and the fact is that there are criticisms of the movement and these need to be included in the lead so as to have a NPOV lead. Your deletion actually created a non-NPOV compliant lead. Slp1 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

perceived?

I removed the word "perceived" from the lede and added a source that does not see these forms of discrimination as perceived, but as real. I think any time we add the word "perceived", that adds a fair amount of POV to the story - from the mens' rights movement angle, and from some working in the field, there is both perceived and real discrimination. Anyone who thinks that there is zero REAL discrimination against men needs to get their head checked. Is it of the same magnitude, or of the same importance, as discrimination against women? That is another subject. But does gender-based discrimination exist for men - not just as a perception, but as a reality? Yes. The lede should be a neutral presentation of the key aspects, and there are plenty of critiques/etc further below in the article about the particulars. Having "perceived" in the lede sentence takes it a step too far, and those adding this word know why they're adding it, and it seems to be in order to espouse a particular POV (which may, indeed, be backed up by hand-picked sources - but that is irrelevant. I can hand-pick sources too.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in the section higher up the page. This has been discussed so many, many times. I'll also recommend that you avoid using as a forum to discuss the issue. We are not here to make a page that supports the notion "gender-based discrimination exist for men" is a reality. Or that it is not. We are here to reflect reliable sources. And ascribing motives to other people is strictly against the article probation here, which I suggest you read up on. --Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I read one section above on perceived, and certainly didn't see a consensus to include, and I've now added a source that doesn't use the word at all and takes the claims at face value. I can add 4 others if that would help. "Perceived" is the classic definition of a WP:Weasel word in this instance. If you have a more neutral formulation, please propose it - but for now I think perceived in the very first sentence goes way too far. cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's called cherry-picking - searching for a source that supports what you want the article to say. The source that says "perceived" is more recent and directly on topic, while the one you prefer is about religion and masculinity and hardly mentions the men's rights movement at all. In fact your source actually says on p. 241, "men's rights advocates often focus on trying to reestablish rights they perceive as having lost."[68] Neutrality does not mean we present the men's rights views as factual. TFD (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't mean we present the *other* views as factual either. Shall I cite 10 different books that talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors? What more do you need to justify that discrimination against men is real - why do *you* believe it is only perceived? Because one source says so? How many sources say so, vs. how many sources do not? Have you actually done the math? Your arguments are not very strong here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

" Shall I cite 10 different books that talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors?"
Yes please. Carptrash (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

a few to start:

• Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men; Authors P. Nathanson, Katherine K. Young; Publisher McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 2006 ISBN 077355999X, 9780773559998;Length 672 pages
• Gay Male Pornography: An Issue Of Sex Discrimination, Law and Society Series, ISSN 1496-4953; Author Christopher Kendall; Publisher UBC Press, 2004; ISBN 0774810777, 9780774810777; Length 270 pages
• The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys; Volume 37 of Blackwell Public Philosophy Series; Author David Benatar; Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2012; ISBN 0470674512, 9780470674512; Length 304 pages
• Employment Discrimination Against Gay Men and Lesbians: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held in New York, NY, June 20, 1994, Volume 4
• Equality and Non-Discrimination in South Africa: The Political Economy of Law and Law Making; Author Shadrack Gutto; Edition illustrated; Publisher New Africa Books, 2001; ISBN 1919876553, 9781919876559; Length 359 pages
• Wage discrimination and occupational segregation of foreign male workers in Germany; Issue 95, Part 4 of Discussion paper; Author Johannes Velling; Publisher Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, 1995; Original from Cornell University; Digitized Apr 8, 2011

There are plenty of others about discrimination of gay men and African-American men and old men and so on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I was the one who -I believe- first introduced the word "perceived in this spot and these references are enough to convince me to remove it. The history of editors abusing (my word) sources and references at this, and other related articles is the stuff of legend and a really (opinion) a problem for wikipedia. However I am willing to go the 'Assume good faith" route here. Obi, just so that you know a little history here, I ordered (and paid the postage for) several books through innerlibrary loan to check out sources that had been used by what I will sterotype as pro MRM editors and pretty much none of them checked out. But that was them and this is you. let's put on our seat belts and see what happens next. Carptrash (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I'm a newbie here to this article, I came here after reading somethign else that disturbed me, and when I read that word, it bugged me, and in checking sources, I didn't see enough to support it either. I'm also quite willing to accept that many claims of the MRM are exaggerated, or that they can even be completely FALSE. But to jump from there, to stating that in our planet of 7 BILLION people, there is no, and has not ever been, nor will there ever be, any discrimination against men, is just too far to stretch - and to me, that little word "perceived" means that. We can maintain and expand a criticism section or whatever, that says MRM says "men are discriminated against for A, B, C, and D", and then have critics say "well, A is really like this, and B is really like that - whatever" - but again, we're talking the first sentence, the lede here, and using the word perceived just totally kills the whole thing, right from the start, it brands the whole thing as imaginary, which I don't think it is. If someone made the exact same edit to the Women's rights article, what would happen? Pitchforks, torches, the whole lot - they would be crucified. But here, people war to keep it. Anyway, I'm glad you had a change of heart. And I agree, we should not abuse references, in any case no matter what, so I appreciate your efforts to keep us true to sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't push "true to sources" too hard. Here is a chunk from an earlier discussion when I first introduced "perceived",

"The way that the source (Newton p. 190) says it is, "what it saw" and the "it" here refers to the MRM."

I changed "what it saw" to "perceived" at that point. Going a bit farther, do all the sources that you put out discuss the MRM? Because that is what the article s about. It is not about whether or not men really face discrimination. Carptrash (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, four of the six sources do not mention the men's rights movement [69][70][71][72]. Only two sources – Benatar and Nathanson & Young – mention the men's rights movement. Benatar refers to the men's rights movement in passing twice, one time to state that "feminists are rightfully critical of that view [held by men's rights advocates]". Nathanson & Young do not mention the men's rights movement but what they do is cite Pamela Cross who wrote "The men's rights lobby rose up in protest against these new guidelines. Fathers who were resistant to paying decent level of support for their children insisted that many of them wanted to be custodial parents rather than access dads, thus eliminating the need for them to pay child support..."

Most reliable, scholarly sources say "perceived" or "what they saw" or something similar when they discuss the discrimination against men that men's rights activists believe to have identified. This has been discussed in the section Talk:Men's_rights_movement#"Perceived" where an editor provided sources and where multiple uninvolved editors have commented in support of including the word "perceived". No one has suggested that "there is no, and has not ever been, nor will there ever be, any discrimination against men" as Obiwankenobi wrote. This is the article about the men's rights movement. This is not the place to argue that discrimination against men exists. If you want to make changes to the article based on the sources you cite, please make sure that they actually say something about the men's rights movement and hopefully that something will support your changes. The sources cited here don't do that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all. Even the source cited above, says the following:"

• "Fathers' rights organizations share many of the concerns of men's rights groups but focus on discrimination against men in divorce, child support, visitation, and custody legislation"
• "Historically and contemporarily, through slavery, segregation, discrimination, and unemployment, African American men have lacked the autonomy and resources to support a family"
• "Ironically, the report was part of a governmental strategy to deal with the increasing civil rights demands for racial justice, which involved abolishing not only legal racism but also labor market discrimination"
• "the president of a fragile-families organization stressed that he and the low-income/poor African American fathers who are assisted by the fragile-families organizations experience the same gendered and racial discrimination" -

so in the *same* report, you have discrimination unadorned with the "perceived" weasel word. I'm sorry but logically you have a losing battle here - if you use the word perceived, you are basically saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence by scholars, and the overwhelming weight of evidence about discrimination, means that this discrimination is no more than a perception. If we produce evidence for real discrimination, on the other hand, you cannot use the word perceived - it's no longer NPOV. I can find 800 instances of use of the phrase perceived discrimination associated with feminism - but that doesn't mean we should go change the lede on that article. The argument that this is about male rights movement perception of discrimination vs. actual discrimination men face is also wikilawyering of the highest degree, and takes WP:SYN way beyond what it is meant to be. If I find a source that says "MRM protests against custody laws that discriminate" and another source that says "MRM perceives the custody laws are unfair" and a third source that says "Custody laws can clearly discriminate against men" it is NOT synthesizing to say in the lede "MRM protests against custody laws that can discriminate." thus, the sources above, and others I could bring to the table that outline the actual discrimination faced by actual men in the actual world can be used to eliminate the word "perceived" above, because it demonstrates that (some forms of ) discrimination MRM advocates against do (to some degree), in fact, exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And if you go and check out some of these MRM groups on the web you will, I predict, quickly discover that they are heavily laden with "perceived" issues, most of which seem to arise out of the septic tanks that pass for their minds. If you think that more than the tiniest percentage gave any thought towards, say, black gay men, think again. Early in th history of the movement ther was some concern for racial issues, but that is (opinion) about it. Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Only the first quote mentions the men's rights movement. The quote is from a new source – Fatherhood Politics in the United States by Anna Gavanas – that you bring up for the first time. What you can see is that Anna Gavanas says the following: "All these instances of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women." Thank your for adding another source to the many other sources listed in Talk:Men's_rights_movement#"Perceived" which say "perceived" or something similar. So far you have completely ignored the previous discussion and consensus that "perceived" is what the majority of reliable secondary sources say about the grievances of men's rights activists.

By the way, I have no idea why you bring up racism and racial discrimination and homophobia because I am not aware of any reliable source that claims that the men's rights movement fights against racism and heterosexism. I know of a few sources that suggest the exact opposite, see [73] (p. 349, left column, second paragraph) as one example. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, that source is the source provided for the word in the article lede. It's not "new", so don't go lighting off fireworks just yet. And the other quotes are TALKING about the men's rights movement, and the context they are working in - you need to read the context. This reminds me of the astronomer and the amateur - the moon is made of green cheese argument. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Only one of the four quotes mentions the men's rights movement, it's the one by Gavanas who wrote "perceived". Also, in response to your edit summary where you wrote that "The point is the discrimination is real." No, that is not the point at all. Try articles like divorce, child custody etc., not this article which is about the men's rights movement, not about whether discrimination against men as a group is real or not. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus, have you actually LOOKED at the so-called sources given in the famous "perceived" section? If you just look at the pull-quotes, as many voting editors likely did, it seems like an open-shut case, but if you actually read the documents, you may have one sentence that says "MRM perceives inequity in the law" and then 15 other sentences that talk about the specific laws they are fighting against, without ever again the use of the word perceives. So that whole "perceived" section above is cherry picking of the highest order - for example, here is a quote from the same source, cherry picked in a different way: [74] "Advocates of 'men's rights' have sought to campaign, via a variety of strategies, to bring about law reform which might promote men's interests." Notice, nothing about "perceived" - rather a straight up statement - they want to change certain laws. The rest is cherry picked in the same exact way. Shall I present 20 other quotes of the same genre, from 20 other papers? At what point do you people just drop the stick? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, of course the sentence does not say "perceived" because I assume that Gavanas know what makes sense and what does not. Men's rights activists want to promote men's interests, yes. The interests are not perceived and the attempts to promote those interests aren't perceived either. I have no idea why you quoted the sentence and what you believe it means that the sentence doesn't say "perceived".

Racism and heterosexism affects men (and women). But the men's rights movement does not focus on issues of racial discrimination or discrimination based on sexual orientation, quite the opposite if you believe the source by Whitaker, so why do you keep bringing this up? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to endorse views, whether those of feminists, LGBT rights groups, anti-racism groups, pro-racism groups, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sonic, what will it take to change your mind on this issue? You seem convinced that the best way to describe all of the grievances of the men's rights movement is with a single weasel word: perceived - and are willing to go through an enormous and tendentious process of cherry-picking single lines out of very long documents that use this word - even if used only once in the whole exposition. You obviously realize the power this word has, especially in the lede, and are fighting to keep it there. Why?

At the same time, you must admit and accept that there is discrimination against men that is real and documented. So it's almost as if you believe that the whole men's right movement is targeting only "imaginary" discrimination while ignoring all of the real discrimination right under their nose?! Does that make sense to you? Do you not realize this is a completely POV way to present the situation? If I find you pull quotes from all of your same sources above, that say basically the same thing but *don't* use the word perceived, will you drop the stick? Or how about a compromise - we leave perceived out, and then in the footnote, put that "some scholars see many claims of the MRM as perceived, and not real, discrimination" or "some scholars have disputed the extent of discrimination claimed by some MRM proponents" or whatever? I feel like you guys are bending over backwards to keep this word in. Why don't you ask yourselves, why? What is motivating that? Am I *really* just being a good editor and following the sources whence they lead me, or is there something else going on? Can I truly be said to be acting in a purely NPOV fashion here?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You came here to explain that you removed the word "perceived" because "gender-based discrimination exist for men". An editor told you that this was discussed before and that we need to reflect reliable sources about the men's rights movement, not create in article that supports the idea that discrimination against men exists. You cited six sources that you believe "talk about actual discrimination faced by actual men written by actual authors". I joined this discussion to point out to you again that our job is to summarize what reliable sources say about the men's rights movement, not to convince people that discrimination against men is real. I also explained that of the six sources you provided only two mention the men's rights movement and that those two do not argue that the claims by the men's rights movement are legitimate. You went on to cite four quotes from Anna Gavanas' book. Again, I explained that only the first quote mentions the men's rights movement and that it says "perceived discrimination". The remaining three quotes discuss racism and race-based discrimination, i.e., something that the men's rights movement does not seek to redress. It is a mystery to me why you keep talking about things that do not concern the men's rights movement and why you keep talking about discrimination against men.

I did not add the word "perceived", I did not restore the word "perceived", this is the first time that I feel obligated to join a discussion about the word "perceived". I must disagree with your perception that I am the one who has been "cherry-picking single lines". You can read a randomly selected sample of reliable sources that discuss the men's rights movement or you can read Google Scholar's (or preferably a more selective, subscription-based tool's) first ten or 20 search results (e.g., [75]). What you'll find is that most or all of these sources are critical of men's rights movement and frequently use qualifiers such as alleged, supposed or perceived for the types or discrimination that the men's rights movement has identified. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, some of you aren't even trying to hide your biases against MRM! Those of you that are should refrain from being involved in this, clearly you're having trouble remaining neutral. Saying that MRM are advocating against discrimination is perfectly neutral. To quote a feminist editor "It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating against unicorns, n'est ce pas?" Sources and consensus don't trump policy anyways. You can give a source's weasel words & expressions of doubt but you can't use them out of quotation for the lead. It's also simply not true. The couple who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard for example, who committed the same crime, both got drastically different sentences- the female got 36 years to life and cannot be paroled until she is in her 70s, the male got 431 years to life. I'm not "perceiving" the 395 yr difference in the sentences, and it's not some cultural bias that could fit under the perception moniker but a clear legal decision. The stats on custody, the fact only certain genders can have their genitals surgically altered against their will or be drafted & forced to serve on the front lines of combat also show there's some legal ways men are treated differently. That's not to say MRMs don't exaggerate their discrimination vs other groups- and removing the word "perceived" doesn't mean the lead/article is making a statement on that one way or the other. There are places in the article where citing sources calling this discrimination "perceived" is acceptable, if they meet WP:RS I don't think anyone here is saying they shouldn't be allowed. But we can't be treating the articles on men and women differently, period. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AS I recall it, this source (the one where the perceived came from) was first introduced by an MRM advocate. I looked it up and discovered that the source was being badly manhandled by the editor and so initiated the change that lead here. To me this is making ones bed and lying in it. Oh yes, a dedicated wikipedia editor attempted to get some MRM types to edit here, and for his efforts was vilified in a most terrible way at some MRM site.Carptrash (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is this encyclopedia is not here to promote what individual editors think are "real" or "obvious" cases of discrimination such as those that are listed above. That's in part because what is real/obvious to one person is not so obvious to others. For example, per the sources in this very article, the US Supreme Court ruled against men's rights activists (and feminists) who argued discrimination in the male only draft, finding that it was reasonable selection. For example, the jury members/judge in the Dugard case apparently found the husband was more culpable (maybe the fact that he did the raping had something to do with it?). But the fact is, we are not here to expound on our own personal opinions or to demand an equality between articles and topics but to summarize what reliable sources say. It is a total distraction to get into these discussions.
• I'd also like to say, and as mentioned above by another editor, perceived actually is a perfectly appropriate and neutral word. "I perceived the moon" means "I saw the moon". "He perceived what was going on" means "He was clued in". So yes, Truthiness, you are "perceiving" the 395 year difference in sentences. It's just that the judge (and presumably any appeal court etc) doesn't agree you that this is in fact a case of discrimination.
• Obiwankenobi, I looked at the quotes you cited, and I agree with SonicYouth86 that you are mixing apples with oranges. The 3/4 quotes that you cited have absolutely nothing to do with the men's rights movement, and are from chapters about fragile families, pro-family groups etc. The discrimination mentioned there is race-based discrimination, not discrimination against men. As I am sure you understand this is a completely different issue. And as Carptrash and SonicYouth86 says, the MRM has just about zero interest in the particular challenges of African-Americans or gay/bisexual/transexual men, or indeed male refugees separated from their wives and children. It's one of the criticisms that is made that the MRM is largely a white middle-class movement in the Euro-American cultures.
• Having said all this, I am sick to death of this whole discussion. This isn't a binary (+perceived -perceived) issue. The article lead needs to summarize the article fairly. The MRM make certain claims. Though men's rights supporters don't like it, scholarly sources, the media and in everyday Euro-American culture don't generally accept these points. Can we formulate the lead so that it does not use the word "perceived", but conveys this information?

Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for compromise. What about this:

1. In the first sentence, the footnote for the "discrimination" part adds something like "some scholars dispute certain claims of discrimination"
2. The last sentence of para 2 could be, "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist, and some of their discrimination claims and approaches to legal reform have been critiqued by scholars" - so we still get the fact in the lede that this is disputed, but we don't disarm the first sentence - the MRM does clearly work against discrimination, in the same way that feminists work against discrimination, but in both cases, certain claims are challenged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a compromise. Discrimination btw means unfair treatment of someone based on their membership in a group. Whether or not existing laws are unfair is a matter of opinion. Men are not allowed in women's lavatories for example but that may not be unfair. TFD (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

you may not perceive it as a compromise but I do. And I know what discrimination means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what you think it means. Do you think that separate washrooms for men and women is discrimination and if so do you oppose it? Why or why not? TFD (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a step forward Obiwan except that what you are attributing to "some scholars" is actually the vast majority of views. The article needs to convey that the movment is widely critiqued NOT just by "some scholars". The MRM's view of discrimination is in wikipedia talk a "fringe view" of discrimination. As per this site's policy on NPOV in articles about fringe topics "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views" (see WP:FRINGE/PS]] and WP:GEVAL). This does not detract from the MRM's views' *notability* just their mainstream acceptance. It is a claim by the MRM (until the mainstream of sources agree) that men are discriminated against in certain ways. Just as if this encyclopedia was written 600 years ago it was a claim then that the earth was round. Being 'fringe' doesn't mean an idea is untrue - just that it isn't widely accepted. PS it doesn't matter what construction we personally place on terms it ONLY matters what ones sources use most widely--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(edit conflict) Obi, it makes a huge difference whether any differential treatment exists and whether it is unfair to whether we say or imply in WP's encyclopedic voice, that there is legit discrimination against men. There seems to be a fairly strong consensus in scholarly and other sources that many of their claims and methods are dubious. However, I think we can get around the problem by a much more radical reworking of the whole lead, including moving quite a lot of the material around. Part of the problem with that sentence is that the disputed information is in the first sentence, which limits its possible structure. The info doesn't need to be there, and it can be better contextualized a couple of sentences in. I have also swapped social movement for human rights movement - the latter is completely unsourced and unsourceable from anything other than MR sources. Social movement is accurate and has good scholarly sources to back it up.

Here's what I propose, it includes a variation of one of your sentences.

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s over its rejection of feminism. The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses instead on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression that they have identified.

The men's rights movement have been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), health and female privilege. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues.

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others. The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist.

Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Since men are human, the human rights part should probably remain as the discrimination they're against is from a circumstance of birth. The lead should also include a brief description of some actual critiques against them and any claims of misogyny should also have some attribution. Unnamed "others" shouldn't be there as that's a vague weasel word. It's not notable if the "others" consists of Betty & Barney Blogger. Is it predominant politicians, human rights leaders, etc? --TheTruthiness (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• We go by sources not our own logic - and nobody except men's rights activists and their supporters call it a human rights movement. WP isn't the place to promote their spin, so that one is a non-starter. As to the attributions of misogyny I am fine with that, but somebody deleted them in the last few days saying they weren't necessary so you had better take it up with them. Others including the media, the SPLC, obviously feminist groups too. BTW, we are summarizing the information in the article, and we therefore don't need citations in the lead. Slp1 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how is this:

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s over its critiques of feminism. The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses instead on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression. Activists in the men's rights movement have been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), health and female privilege. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues. The men's rights movement's claims of discrimination and disadvantage have been critiqued by scholars and others, and the anti-feminist stance of some MRM groups has led to them being described as misogynist.

I tried to soften the generalizations, as, for example, not all MRM supporters or groups are anti-feminist.[76]--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But perhaps instead of "critiqued" we could use, " “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I get what you're trying to say... We could otherwise say "and disadvantage have been contested by scholars and others" or "and disadvantage have been challenged by scholars and others" ? I also note that there isn't any significant criticism in the lede of Feminism, even though that movement has certainly received a ton of criticism from many sides - there is only one line about the earlier "white" feminism issue - but nothing more structural than that. Would you all agree to embedding more critical language in the lede over there? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have issues with how Feminism is handled I suggest that you discuss it on that (those) talk pages. Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OWK, while I appreciated that you are trying for compromise, your version actually misrepresents the article and its sources. We are not here to "soften the generalizations", but to accurately summarize the article. Which your version doesn't. The split off from the men's liberation was not over its "critiques of feminism" but because the MRM rejected the whole approach. That Huffington post article is describing this men's liberation split -though for some reason they don't use the men's liberation term as scholars do - into the two factions: pro-feminist and anti-feminist. It isn't "some anti-feminist groups" - antifeminism is one the defining characteristics of the movement. And I could go on. Before trying to write the lead, please take the time to read the article and the sources used to cite it. Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article itself has major issues, but I don't have time to get into them now. Allow me just to quote from one of the sources used to defend the "anti-feminist" line in the article - the authors selected for study a number of websites of the men's rights movement: [77] "Indeed, the collected sites were far from being uniformly antagonistic to feminism. Three (xxx) actively advanced women's causes. Others were relatively indifferent on the subject of feminism or ignored women entirely while campaigning for men's rights... But also notable is the numerical and ideological dominance of an avowedly anti-feminist, and habitually misogynistic, impetus." - so their study showed that there was an anti-feminist, right-wing centre, but that there was plenty on the periphery that was not anti-feminist - this is the state of the movement today. That's why I suggested the change, to not generalize and paint all MRM supporters as anti-feminist - while one could argue that this is a dominant strand, there is lots of debate on the edges, so we have to be careful with sweeping generalizations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry OWK but I'm afraid that you are not understanding the literature. The author started from a broad sample from the men's movement, not just men's rights websites. This is shown by the fact that he includes the profeminist National Organization for Men Against Sexism which men's rights groups hate and despite with a passion, and who would never classify themselves as a men's rights groups. Promise Keepers, also mentioned, aren't a men's rights group either. This is apples and oranges Slp1 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede again, no citations

RE:- "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist."

I am not seeing anywhere in the citations anything concerning anti-feminism. What has Men Rights got to do with fighting against "equality for women". There are considerable WP:UNDUE issues here. For the record I consider the use of the Goldwag article for the SPLC as a reliable source a disgrace and an insult to Wikipedia. It is utterly shameful.

CSDarrow (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a point about "anti-feminism" being inaccurate. I think the text should be changed to "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist." I disagree that Goldwag is "shameful"—I think it's a fine source. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A fine source? Then you'd agree to this :-

"The SPLC considers the men’s rights movement and the fathers’ rights movement to be synonymous. It also says the men’s movement 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. Also that 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."

Give me a break. Your suggested edit however is a great improvement, I suggest the change is made. Though since Misogyny is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls", I am still at a loss to see how that applies to the MRM in any significant way.

CSDarrow (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that as a description of a chunk of the MRM, but if you go to any of a variety of mrm websites (I believe that part of the problem with this article is that the MRM phenomena is an internet movement and internet references rarely make the cut as wikipedia sources) the anti feminist loathing make me need to take a shower after a visit. Which is why a couple of visit is enough. Come on Darrow, what would the real Clarence make of these sniveling whimps? At best a paycheck and at worst . . ....... well you figure it out, he's your man, after all. Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you whining?You're a feminist,you disagree with the viewpoint expressed in the article.Too bad.Neutrality should be front and centre not pandering to feminist sensibilities. ````

I will make the agreed upon change to "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist." The above is not my comment btw. CSDarrow (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of formatting your edit so that it is separate from the one that you are claiming distance from, something you probably know how to do but for some reason (who can understand the male mind?) chose not to. Carptrash (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, I don't mean to be continually coming down on you, but that last comment is uncalled for. Referring to the gender of a wikipedia editor - even if it is declared - in a somewhat derogatory sense is unacceptable. Can you imagine if I had said the same thing about you (and I don't even know what your gender is)? It would be insulting. Please consider striking it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Carptrash, between "sniveling wimps" and "male mind" I'm going to have to second the concern about your phrasing. Check your bias at the door, please, and remain civil and respectful to all, unless you really want to get sanctioned. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If I find a source - a well respected reference, than can I use "sniveling wimps" and "male mind"? Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to call people "sniveling wimps" or disparage the "male mind" as incomprehensible, no. Be nice, now. KillerChihuahua 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

The

This page's second paragraph ends with an unsourced statement that "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist."

The statement is not only unsourced, it is also undefined. Significant clarification is needed to make the statement anything other than an effort to insert bias into the article and color the reader's perception of men's rights activism as a whole. The statement needs to define what it means by "some MRM groups," because the article does acknowledge in other paragraphs that the movement is made up of a variety of both formal and informal groups.

There should also be identification as to the specific group(s) which have claimed the groups in question to be "misogynist," because the credibility of the claim is dependent on who is making it. If Sally's Jones's Weekend babysitting club thinks the Men's Rights Movement is misogynist, it's not worth mentioning in the article even if you can link to their blog making the claim.

There should also be a citation for this which actually demonstrates that the entity to which the opinion is attributed actually holds that belief. The importance of that should be self-explanatory, but if it isn't, I'll point out that for months, it has been asserted by opponents of the movement that the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the men's rights movement (as a whole) a hate group, when in fact, the claim is falsely based on a single blog post labeling some out of context quotes from some individuals in a men's rights forum as "misogynist." If the statement that "some MRM groups have been described as misogynist" is based on flimsy evidence like that, then it doesn't belong in the post.

Finally, there should also be a link to a clear definition of the word misogynist, so that the reader can look and compare the evidence (the statement describing the group) to the definition with an eye toward accurate use of the term "misogynist."

If the statement cannot be attributed, clarified, and defined, then it really should be removed, because as an unsubstantiated statement, it's just petty. GloriaSass (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Gloria

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please note the conversation immediately above this section where this exact line was discussed. Feel free to continue the discussion if you have more to add, but an edit request is not the way to get it changed - once a consensus to change it has been established, there are a number of users who frequent this page who are able to do so. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the original request. The current text is part of the "some people say" speak, which was famously perfected by Fox New Channel. It's used by people who want to present an offensive opinion, particularly without representative data, and don't want it attributed to themselves. At a minimum, a claim like this needs to say who makes the claim, how many of them make the claim, who the claim is made against (surely not the whole movement...). Further, if other pages are any indication, criticism hardly belongs in the opening section either. If we're being honest and fair, similarly critical claims could be written about any other minority or political groups (or the groups wouldn't need to exist). What more is there to discuss? Let's get it moved where it belongs. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, the sentence is a summary of the article contents. It does not need to be supported by a source, nor does it need to attribute the viewpoint. The article body takes care of that. The writing is a good implementation of the WP:LEAD guideline which tells how to write the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But why does that particular sentence, out of all in the article, need to be in the lede? There is a ton of material in this article. Why bubble that one sentence up, with is so problematic (especially if not to be cited), and left as a vague "some people think that some of these guys are bad" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)