Talk:Men's rights movement

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 [1] 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 [2] [3] [4].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lead and the Criticism Section [5] 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 [6] contains the word "Manosphere" in the URL, which is a pejorative for the MRM. The term is used repeatedly in [7].

• "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 [8].

• 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, [9]. 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 [10]. 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[11] - 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 [12], [13], [14], [15] 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 [16]. 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)

• Strong oppose. With this reversion I restored the bit about SPLC to the lead section, in accordance with arguments expressed here. I consider it vitally important to the topic for the MRM to be connected in the lead section to the assertions made by SPLC further down in the article body. This includes the word "misogynist" which has been the subject of edit warring. We should be closely following the WP:LEAD guideline which advises us to summarize important article points in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal. In addition to the POV problems discussed at length above, a bunch of complaints in academic sources do not make the accusation notable. Furthermore, describing entire sectors of a movement as misogynist is downright sexist; could an article on WRM state that "sectors of the WRM are misandrist?" Or what if we specified the sector -- saying, for example, "women's studies departments create a hostile environment for male students." Obviously, the material is a violation of WP:LABEL. Lastly, the writing in this sentence is just terrible.William Jockusch (talk) 16:40, 22 June 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)

Well, the "misogyny" slur does not exactly promote diversity. If someone accused you of being sexist, you might take exception, too.William Jockusch (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting a weasel to rest--no, two for the price of one

"Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist" could, conceivable, be called weaselish, but as WP:WEASEL indicates such an evaluation needs to be made in context. First of all, the statement is in the lead, which means it doesn't require citations right there as long as it is supported in the article; see WP:CITELEAD. Second, then, the question is whether it's verified in the article, and it seems to be. I'll cite from WEASEL: " However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold in the source). And more specifically in this case, since the statement is in the lead, "The examples given above ["some people say, many scholars state", etc.] are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I hope that puts this matter to rest.

Now, the article is still tagged for weasel words. I don't know who put it there (which camp, boy or girl or transgender, etc.), but I see no specific "weasel-inline" tags in the article. The only weasel-discussion on this talk page pertains to the word "perceived", a matter laid to rest (in this admin's opinion--I look at that discussion as a kind of RfC) by such users as Binksternet, Reyk, WLU, Mathsci, and Dominus Vobisdu, with recourse to the literature. That is, the sources, according to that discussion, bear out that the word is used properly; subsequent rebuttals by two users don't address, for instance, the detailed analysis of Binksternet. So, I'm going to have a look at the history of that tag and its dating; if it's related to the word "perceived", I will remove it. The next time someone wants to add it (whichever side they're on etc. etc.), they should start a new discussion here with a detailed analysis of the specific offending term before a general tag applying to the entire article without specifying the problem is faced. It's ironic, I suppose, that a weasel tag without such specification is weaselish ("some editors think that some terms in this article are weaselish"). Drmies (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I have reverted this edit. In context, this is drive-by tagging, from an account with 40 edits who didn't seem fit to take this up on the talk page (and hasn't ever edited this article or the talk page besides that one time). I note that since that edit CSDArrow has removed a few other words citing "weasel" in the edit summary; I have no opinion on those edits since I haven't looked at them--but their edits suggest that if there were more weasel words (perceived weasel words, haha) than "perceived" they've been taken care of. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The particular wording was put in place here by CSDarrow, which IMO made it more weaselish. The previous wording of "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist" seems more precise. I also dislike Darrow's removal of the term academic in several places, stating it is "weaselish". In this case the remarks are attributed to Michael Messner, who is a sociologist, and Michael Flood, who is also a sociologist, both holding university professorships. The other citation is to Men and Masculinities, published by Open University Press and authored by Christian Haywood, Máirtı́n Mac an Ghaill. Both are employed by the Department of Education at the University of Newcastle. In fact, in all three cases there were multiple citations to attached to the sentence where "academic" was removed. In every case I looked into, the citations were to peer-reviewed journals or university/scholarly press. So these appear to be statements made by academics.

The issue at hand seems to be that CSDarrow wants to undercut the credibility of criticisms. Further, proponents of the MRM want to see an article free of criticisms like "misogyny". In neither case does there appear to be an appreciation that a) there is considerable, possibly majority scholarly criticism of the MRM for, among other things, misogyny and b) our policy on neutrality requires us to reflect this. I would support a return to this version of the page (diff) bar two changes - leave out the {{who}} and {{clarify}} tags, and replace "Men's rights writer Christina Hoff Sommers..." with "Equity feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WLU, I don't wish to argue that the one is more or less weaselish than the other. It seems to me that the general spirit of the remark is verified sufficiently; if you wish to be bold and revert/change, I have no objection. If you do, I'd ask you to (here's the pedant speaking) place a brief note in a separate section so this one doesn't bloat to Gargantuan proportions. Similar with academic: note that I didn't endorse or criticize CSDArrow's removals--I just used them to make the point that if anything the tag was less valid than it was before. Sometimes "academic" is appropriate, sometimes it is not; in general I wouldn't dispute its validity, but again, do that with a (brief) separate comment, and same for the tags. I may sound like a bureaucrat (maybe I am), but this talk page currently contains a ton of sections that mix all kinds of material and commentary, and smaller separate sections make for more manageable discussions, forcing editors to stay on point. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoff Summers is a highly accomplished academic. Her viewpoint is to be exposed but profeminist academics are to have theirs obscured? Is that want you are suggesting WLU? It is misleading the reader to use the title academic alone as it suggests an arms length and expert viewpoint, when in fact the writer is a member of a school of thought strongly at odds with those being commented on. As such it is a weasel word, puffery or just plain wrong. CSDarrow (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:No consensus, I've deleted this entire passage. It has multiple problems, starting with no consensus.William Jockusch (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:No consensus does not justify deleting content. What's more it is only an Essay, and not a policy or guideline so citing it doesn't really mean much. If you think that content has multiple problems please identify what you think they are, and offer potential solutions. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Scholars and others" in the lede . . . seriously? "Sectors of the movement" . . . OK, apparently entire sectors of the movement are being described here. Which ones? The sentence is trying to have its cake and eat it too by putting in the insinuation of misogyny without having anybody take responsibility for the criticism or specifically stating to whom the criticism is being applied. Suppose the women's rights movement were being described here. Would it be acceptable to say in the lede that "sectors of the women's rights movement have been described as man-hating"? Or "Clergy and others have accused the gay rights movement of promoting an immoral lifestyle"? Or in the article on Western culture, we could note in the opening that "Imams and others have stated that Western culture is contrary to the law of Allah as revealed in the Koran."William Jockusch (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Scholars might be one thing, but who are these "others"? And why should anybody care what they say? That's weasel-ish in the extreme and it should be taken out. Federales (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined

to remove the Draft evasion link from the "See also" section because . . . . .... why is it there? The article linked has no, that I could find in a quick scan, mention of the Men's rights movement or of gender at all. Any thoughts about keeping it? Carptrash (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until it can be completely rewritten in light of a notional source that discusses how the MRM approaches this issue. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes the link seems fairly odd. We already mention conscription. The fact that governments will generally punish people who illegally avoid conscription and that there are various ways to avoid it, both legal and illegal depending on the country is mentioned in our article on conscription which has a link to that article and there's no need to go into much detail on that here. The only case where it would seem relevant is if it's suggested that in some places where there is conscription for both sexes, it's harder to avoid it if your male or if you get punished more severely or whatever, and that would need a source linking it to the MRM. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Men.27s_Right.27s_Movement.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It drives me crazy that this type of link always seems to go dead after a while.William Jockusch (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If it has "gone dead" that means it has been archived, and discussion is closed. Archived discussions are still available for viewing; use the search function below the archive page links, or if the discussion is recent simply browse to it. That discussion is here, in Archive 799. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre1970s history sourcing

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Since men's rights redirects to this article, and since what follows (activism, movement, advocate, enthusiast, etc) varies, that is the core phrase to be considered here.

Tried this earlier at #History section but the conversation got convoluted. I'm giving this another go, regarding the sourcing of historical statements about "men's rights" and attempting to arrange them chronologically. Starting with the earliest JSTOR result for the phrase:

Outlines of Universal History, from the Creation of the World to the Present Time by George Weber, M. Behr from The North American Review, Vol. 76, No. 158 (JANUARY, 1853), pp. 124-166 (page 134)

We may accept, then, in its full extent, the remark of Sir James Mackintosh: -

"The first principles of jurisprudence are simple maxims of reason, of which the observance is immediately discovered by experience to be essential to the security of men's rights, and which pervade the laws of all countries."

This early example highlights a supreme difficulty in researching sources for the origins of the topic of this article. That the term was used in a general sense (by which we might now think citizen rights or human rights) rather than a specific man vs woman sense. That said, the predominance of 'men' could be due to men being the ones held legally accountable for acts in which women were not. Due to that, it could be significant to elaborate on this in the history section, though it would benefit from tertiary references to interpret that reality. Weren't there policies where men were held accountable for their wives actions, or something of that sort, in the pre-1900s?

I did find one notable reference:

• Woman in German Literature before and after the Reformation by Myrtle Mann Gillet from The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 1918), pp. 346-375 (page 351)

"Although he looked at marriage on the whole through the eyes of a man he in no case shows himself in the least unsympathetic towards women. Although a Catholic and Dean of Bamberg Cathedral, upholding no doubt as a churchman the doctrine of celibacy as holy, he nevertheless wrote his Ehebuchlein with a layman's comprehension - and more - of woman's personal problems. To be sure he demands that women should obey their husbands and serve them in every way, but after a loud discussion of men's rights, he turns to them with stern directness:

I am looking for suggestions on what terms to look for, to find more specific references. Particularly regarding the 1920s group earlier dismissed. Ranze (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ranze, let me ask you to use our citation templates. I just finished the last of those four you added. Three of them could have been more easily handled if you had used Template:Cite book where all you had to do was stick in the URL and click the fill-in button. Besides, you added formatting to the quotes without indicating what you added. I think you added wikilinks for two historians, but wikilinking in quotes is strongly discouraged. So I edited them a little bit, but I am not entirely sure whether they are an accurate representation of what was in the sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ranze, you may consider framing up a "Men's rights" page in your userspace, I'll help you if you like. I think there are enough sources, both the older ones you've found, and more recent ones, that use a rights-based discourse but that aren't talking only about this one branch.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This was discussed in April and there was no consensus to include the information. Ranze knows this because he was the editor that tried to include something similar before [17] and participated in the discussion. Ranze, do you have reason to assume that the consensus has changed or why have you ignored the previous discussion? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sonic I get the impression you either did not read my message or are intentionally trying to misrepresent my actions. Look at what you say:

Ranze knows this because he was the editor that tried to include something similar before

You write that as if to inform people of it, as if I was avoiding that information. But look at what I said in my post:

Tried this earlier at #History section but the conversation got convoluted. I'm giving this another go

Clearly I was open about being the editor who addressed the issue before. Please do not imply otherwise. Now in regard to consensus:

there was no consensus to include the information. .. do you have reason to assume that the consensus has changed? .. why have you ignored the previous discussion?

The only accurate statement here is the first one. A lack of attaining consensus to include information is not the same thing as having attained consensus to NOT include the information. As anyone can see from reading the discussion, I could not have ignored it, because I participated in it heavily, including replying to people who replied to the thread. Consensus was simply not reached because people stopped replying to it, and now the thread has even been archived so to discuss it further there must be this new section. People did not address my counterpoints, so I am reconstructing the argument here. I have found copies of one of the 1920 newspaper articles using Ancestry.com (a preview is available which confirms its legitimacy) so know for certain it exists. We should prepare to include it as soon as we can get a full copy. Ranze (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote. There was no consensus to include the information. What changed in the meantime that you believe that there is consensus to include it? And if you are so confident that "Consensus was simply not reached because people stopped replying to it", then why didn't you bring this up here and wait for more editors to respond? I should add that I'm not opposed to adding information that some men in Austria and Germany felt so oppressed by women in the interwar period that they formed "men's rights" groups here and there. I believe that I said something similar [18]. What bothers me is that you implied that there were actual organized "movements" (sources don't support that). You didn't mention that it is all about one organization, "League of Men's Rights" in Austria, and, most importantly, you didn't consider the explanation in the previous discussion that "Liga fur Menschenrechte" ("Leage of Men's Rights") translates to "League for the rights of people". This is why the "Liga fur Menschenrechte" described in the last source (Plotkin) doesn't bear any resemblance or share any of the same interests of the men's rights organizations as we've known them since the late 1960s. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider it an improvement if a prehistory were given, an account of some forerunners, lest we completely define the term "men's rights movement" in opposition to feminism. But that can only be done, the way I see it, on two conditions: a. that a context is provided, not just with a quote in the footnote; and b. that a modern reference indicate that these are indeed forerunners of a kind. I say this having edited the templates but being blissfully unaware of the content of the cited works or the previous discussion. After all, time's a wasting. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The very early Putnam source discusses "men's rights" as a backlash reaction to the upwelling of women's rights, so your notion that the forerunners might not be in opposition to feminism is incorrect. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I don't have that notion, but that's how our article currently defines it. I'll be more complete: in opposition to 1960/1970s feminism. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that Ranze's sources mention one Austrian organization, not "movements" as he wrote. Another problem is that at least one of the four sources, an excerpt from a diary from 1932 [19], is about the "Liga fur Menschenrechte" which means "League for the rights of people", not "League for the rights of men". There is no evidence that this was a precursor to the men's rights movement. Moreover, one could argue that we're dealing with primary sources because they were so close to the event (a diary written by someone who was invited to join the organization, an NYT article from 1926, a book from 1932).

There's this one source [20] that discusses the responses to feminism at the turn of the century and it mentions the men's rights movement under the header "Contemporary parallels". There's also a masters thesis that deals with the "Mannerrechtsbewegung" ("men's rights movement") in Austria in the 1920s: [21]. The two sources characterize the 1920's version of men's rights groups as part of a backlash against the women's rights movement. I'm not aware of any sources (apart from the two I mentioned) which deal with forerunners or turn-of-the-century parallels to the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now we're talking. Thanks. Now... care to add that to the article, properly verified and contextualized? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Before that I want to remove the Plotkin ref (diary entry about the "Liga fur Menschenrechte", which does not translate to "men's rights" but "rights of people"). I also want to reword the entire sentence to clarify that the sources deal with one organization, the „Bund fur Mannerrechte” (League for Men's Rights), not "movements". Do I have the support to make the edits? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also replace the Healy ref with the actual book by Hauch and the relevant quote in German about the "Bund für Männerrechte" (Hauch, Gabriella (1995). Vom Frauenstandpunkt aus: Frauen im Parlament, 1919-1933. Vienna: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik. p. 13. ISBN 978-3-85115-216-6.) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to look in detail at sources, but I'll start of by saying that there was clearly a consensus in the prior discussion that the 1932 diary extract [22] was not suitable as a source because it a left-wing human rights group (see [23][24][25][26]) and absolutely nothing to do with the men's rights being described in this context. I am going to remove that reference.Slp1 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't researched this, but based on the links you provided, that makes sense - it seems this particular group was a human rights group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to include this material, what about "misogynist" in the intro? Is there a consensus for that? Or do the "no consensus" rules somehow apply differently?William Jockusch (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed prison section

The following section removed by Dominus just now under accusation of WP:Synthesis:

===Prison===
British MP Philip Davies stated that contrary to claims that women are more harshly treated then men this is not the case in the United Kingdom where the majority of prisoners are men and they are treated more harshly on the whole.

“The published statistics show that a higher proportion of men are given a sentence of immediate custody than women, irrespective of age of offender (juveniles, young adults or adult) and type of court (magistrates or Crown). This has been the case in each year between 1999 and 2009...For each offence group, a higher proportion of males are sentenced to custody than females...In 2009 58% of male offenders who entered a guilty plea for an indictable offence were given an immediate custodial sentence compared to only 34% of women.” <ref>{{cite web |title= Sentencing (Female Offenders) |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121016/halltext/121016h0001.htm |date=16 October 2012 }}</ref> - - I think this may have been done too hastily. This section clearly supports a specific viewpoint, and even if the term "men's rights movement" was not use specifically in the reference, I don't think that makes it unrelated to the topic, nor do I think it "advances a position" (which is what synthesis is) if it is simply reporting facts, that MP Davies made this statement.

Coming to defense of the reality of men's suffering is de facto men's rights activism, and I believe it is worth posting this topic here so we can ask: has MRA responded to this? Do they point this out? If so, that could be sourced and used in conjunction with the section to make it applicable to the article. Ranze (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my problem with the blanket reverts. There is an essay somewhere about "dont just revert" - the point being, try to improve, rather than just delete material that bugs you. I think we are missing a "prison" section, so let's create one together, starting with sources about what MRM says about prison and what advocacy they've done in this regard, and then bring in what the critics say, and then bring in neutral data from other sources. None of that is SYN, that is called building an encyclopedia article, which is by definition a hodge-podge of many sources put together - the key is to not draw a new conclusion, but adding one source after another, no matter if they reference the global topic at hand (as long as they're relevant to the "local" topic, is perfectly legitimate. No policy-based argument nor demonstration of similar wikilawyering in other articles has been mooted to show why this is not allowed. All of this also convinces me more and more that we need a "men's rights" article - as that is indeed a much broader topic, and I think some of this wikilawyering was behind the move to this new title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree about the move being the bad idea. "Men's rights" is clearly a broader topic. I feel like the addition of "activism" or "movement" is a means by which to exclude anything not including those words. By that logic a "league for men's rights" (as news indicates existed) is not "on topic" because the word "league" is neither "activism" or "movement" even though it is clearly that.

Part of the difficulty in constructing sections here is asking "what group/person would qualify as MRA?" in terms of what statements being applicable for inclusion. Wikipedia does describe present-day feminism situations (just look at the Feminist Frequency article) based purely on newspaper coverage, yet for some reason we are only supposed to talk about MRA stuff not merely if it's in a newspaper, but if the papers are covered in subsequent academic journals, which is quite a ridiculous double standard meant to squelch that information I assume. Ranze (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It pains me to admit it but I agree with Ranze on some of this. I missed just why the Prison section was removed. On the other hand it is music to my ears to hear guys complaining about a "double standard" after a few weeks of it after cramming one down everyone's throats for several thousand years. But the issue about Men's rights versus Men's rights movement versus how ever this topic is named is the one about sources. As soon as an article such as this gets created a plague of red linkers show up and start quoting blogs and newsletters and all sorts of unusable sources. I suggest that folks who wish to do so start an article on someone's user page and do whatever seems to cover the topic and then publish it. In my opinion what men need to do is take a hard, honest look at where their suffering is coming from because I totally believe that they will come to recognize that it is not from feminists but from other men who profit from those sufferings. Carptrash (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Slp1 just re-added the prison section with some good cites. Thanks. Now, I don't think it would be synth if we pulled in additional info/statistics, especially if those same stats were cited by MRM or their opponents. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OWK, this dichotomy you keep referencing between men's rights and "their opponents" is distinctly unhelpful, battlegroundy, and unencyclopedic. Please stop. It is not how we write this encyclopedia: we find the best sources about a topic and summarize them. So, yes, it would be probably be okay to add a limited amount of primary sourced material from men's rights websites on this subject. Even better would be to add material from secondary sources which summarize men's rights views and arguments. What we must not to is to add statistics/information from other websites, such as the text that was previously included here or similar, which individual editors believe are related to men's rights and the men's rights movement. That would be original research and synthesis, as it is attempting to prove a point not made in the original source. Stick to material cited by the MRM and preferably those writing about them in reliable sources, and you will be fine. Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thanking you for your good contribution, and you call me battlegroundy. Take it easy there, it's just an article, and we're all doing our best to improve the wiki. My point was, if MRM says "prisoners in 50 states are X", there would be no issue IMHO with bringing in the data source the MRM mention and pointing readers to it; the same holds for data sources mentioned by "critics" (I don't know why you hate the term opponents, it's widely used in many articles and in many domains, but whatever) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not add statistics on dowry death, rape by gender, alimony etc. because the pages dowry death, rape statistics, alimony exist and the continued attempts to turn this article into a WP:Coatrack for these issues need to stop. This is the article about the men's rights movement and we write this article based on reliable, preferably scholarly, sources about the men's rights movement and their views and actions regarding dowry deaths, rape, alimony and all the other issues. Sigh, no, Slp1 did not call you "battlegroundy". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mens rights directs to this article so should be treated as such or we can just change the pages title instead. Pleasetry (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Opponents"

I reverted because the sources do not describe them as "opponents". I would like to hear further reasoning behind the idea that we should use the term "opponents" to describe scholars when they themselves do not call themselves opponents.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone describes entire sectors of a movement as "misogynist", it's pretty obvious that one opposes it. I just checked the LGBT social movements article for example, and I saw the word "opponents" used that way twice. William Jockusch (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they do in article X. Moreover, the men's rights movement is in no way comparable to the LGBT social movements. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep on trotting this out. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, and it was not intended to quash all efforts at consistency by comparing to how similar articles treat similar situations (in the intro, it says "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") In this case, how other articles treat discussions *is* relevant, if only to highlight potential systemic bias in treatment of certain issues - if 5 social issues are treated in one way, while the 6th is treated differently, this is a valid concern w.r.t WP:NPOV. I don't think there would be any issue in noting SPLC as an "opponent" instead of as a neutral scholar, given how they brand MRM. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But there is an issue- one that has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous editors: and the issue is the wish to marginalize the criticism away from the sources: the academics who are supposed to be our main guide in writing this encyclopedia. And that is not going to happen, precisely per WP:NPOV. Surely you understand that we do not require sources to be neutral. We look for what the mainstream, academic position is about topics and summarize it. People who support homeopathy, aids denialism, alternative Shakespearian authorships, 9/11 conspiracy theories etc etc don't like it, but we use sources that are in their view the "biased" views of "opponents". What we have here is just the typical partisan bias of campaigners who believe that everything that they do not personally agree with is "non-neutral" and therefore must be deleted or marginalized. Slp1 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone an opponent marginalizes them - it just contextualizes their statements. Also, the comparison with 9/11 conspiracy is not very apt; there is not a widespread scholarly consensus that MRM is misguided and useless, especially since MRM is an umbrella term used for many different groups pushing for many different things, some of which people are violently opposed to, and some of which they write books in support of.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it marginalizes them!! In any case, why does it need contextualizing when from the context itself it is pretty darn obvious that this is not something said by a supporter?!!

I don't think anybody here has said that the "MRM is misguided and useless"- please avoid strawmen. However, it is true that very few scholarly sources have much good to say about the men's rights approach or the men's rights movement. I've done a broad literature search, but maybe I've missed something. Can you offer up some academic sources that speak more positively about the movement? Slp1 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The strawman I knocked down was that you can fairly compare MRM to 9/11 conspiracy theorists or aids denialism. You started that line of comparison, not me - I was just discrediting the comparison.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "scholars" contextualizes their statements because that is what they are, scholars who hold professorships [27][28][29][30][31][32]. Not even a man's rights activist who is very angry at them for criticizing aspects of their movement can deny that they are scholars. „Political opponents”, „opponents”, „misandrists” is how some editors want to describe them but, luckily for Wikipedia, we do not undercut the credibility of academic sources even if they do it in article X. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But you haven't discredited a thing. The reliable mainstream academic sources don't have anything much good to say about aids denialism, 9/11 or the men's rights movement. Back up your claims that these are somehow different with some academic sources that speak positively about the men's rights approach and the men's rights movement Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the others. These individuals are unequivocally scholars and labeling them otherwise would violate WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To ignore that 'scholars' themselves are biased or have been specifically funded for an outcome would be NPOV too. Pleasetry (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What Pleasetry said.

Being a "scholar" does not make one NPOV, and NPOV scholars do not produce NPOV scholarship -- especially when it is non-empirical scholarship. There are scholars with strong POVs... Marxist scholars, feminist scholars, religious scholars, postmodernist scholars, etc. Religious studies scholars who are themselves devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. routinely disregard / discount the scholarship from those who do not share their fundamental starting assumptions.

The over-reliance on feminist scholars here in no way makes this article NPOV. Memills (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much an "over-reliance" on scholars of feminism as a shortage of any other scholars who care about the topic enough to comment on it. Regarding NPOV, the guideline does not require our sources to be neutral—it requires Wikipedia editors use the sources in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about wikipedia's recording of sources, not about sources being neutral themselves. "[Articles] should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." What you are suggesting Memills is the opposite of NPOV (removing sources because they take a side), and this has been explained to you before--Cailil ^talk 18:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The key term here: "over-reliance."

Imagine an "NPOV" article on feminism where the great majority of sources were authored by masculinists, an "NPOV" article about evolution with most sources authored by creationists, an "NPOV" article about the Democratic Party with most sources authored by Republicans.

The problem here is that when sources authored by MRM folks are introduced, they are often immediately deleted or challenged by editors with an antipathy toward the MRM. Memills (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills it would be a better use of time to acquaint yourself with what this site's policies actually are. You show a clear misunderstanding of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and are casting aspersions about others (which is prohibited generally and specifically in an area under probation)--Cailil ^talk 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Memills, I don't know how many times it has been explained to you that for WP we summarize the highest quality sources available to us. If you have some high quality academic sources about men's rights or the MRM to suggest, then produce them. Otherwise this repetitive bleeting is just plain disruptive. Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently lacks (but needs to develop) administrative policies to deal with situations when a group of like-minded editors with a POV "sit" on an article (see Multiple Editor Owership). Especially for articles on controversial topics, in these cases the entire article itself can become NPOV. The "consensus" policy of WP is ineffective in this situation. To wit: Note how this article is dominated by references that are authored by critics of the MRM. Now, compare it to the article on feminism -- quite a difference.

It is instructive to read Multiple Editor Owership re this:

"In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, they may be accused of edit warring or disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, targeted with spurious complaints to administrators, threatened with blocks or bans and bluntly told (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. ...A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Wikipedia entirely."

Note the comment by Carptrash (talk) above: "Jock is gone? Oh well, Another man bites the dust." Memills (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Quite the staying power for a red linker. Carptrash (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are calling the MRM an obscure topic then why are you complaining about what kinds of scholars comment on it? You should be happy to discover each of the scholars who write about the topic, rather than carping about whatever biases you think they have.

You consistently strive against sources you say are biased, but this is not how Wikipedia works. At Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, the guideline tells us that we do not remove reliable sources because they appear to have a bias. Instead, we work to present the material with a neutral tone, in a factual manner. This article is a good example of that. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I have no problem with NPOV. My comment was about a more subtle issue involving editor group dynamics wherein the WP NPOV policy can still result in POV articles.

Let me give you an example. Previously, I brought material referenced to notable, reliable sources -- academic authors writing about men's issues and rights. To wit: Benatar's (a philosophy professor) The Second Sexism and Bauermeister's (a psychology professor) Is There Anything Good About Men?). Both were immediately challenged as inappropriate reference sources to use here, with various rationales -- they were unrelated to the MRM per se (although both deal with men's rights and issues), that use of these references consistituted OR, etc. Sources by MRM critics were not similarly challenged. See my point?

Also, above I suggested comparing the overall tone of this article with the feminism article. There are many sources by reliable / academic critics of feminism that could be peppered throughout the feminism article. There aren't. There could also be a sentence in the lede characterizing feminism as misandrous, followed by a list of notable sources. There isn't. Point being: one can compare these two articles, and despite claims of NPOV, the bias just jumps right out. An embarrassing situation for WP.

These concerns have been expressed many times by many editors on these Talk pages. Most of those editors who had such concerns are no longer here... which, given the group dynamics noted above in WP:Multiple Editor Owership is a clue that similar group dynamics may be occurring here, and resulting in an POV article... Memills (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Per comment below, fixed a couple of references to NPOV that should have been POV in my comment above. Memills (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Memills. There is a group here that watches over this article and reverts new additions, and they (obviously) won't agree with you. Their main rallying call is "It doesn't reference the men's rights movement, thus it doesn't belong here". However, the article was originally at the broader topic of "men's rights". It was then moved to "movement", but since many of the sources discuss it as "men's rights" or even using different terms but the same meaning, any such sources are banned becuase they don't include the word movement. It's silliness to the highest degree. Can you imagine if sources that don't mention "feminism", and instead used "women's rights" or some other term, were barred from the "feminism" page? (Note: Memills, you say NPOV several times above but I think you mean POV)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OWK, that is total rubbish. Can you provide even one diff of material being excluded because it doesn't mention the word "movement", but that does talk about "men's rights"? You won't be able to to because it has never happened.

Memills re: "Sources by MRM critics were not similarly challenged" that is total rubbish too. Can you provide a single diff of a source by an "MRM critic" that does not mention men's rights or the men's rights movement that is included in the article? You won't be able to because there aren't any.

The problem is that POV editors who complain endlessly about bias, but do nothing to actually provide high quality reliable sources that actually talk about men's rights or the men's rights movement. They keep suggesting the same sources (such as Benatar and Baumeister) but which don't mention either except in one case very briefly to be negative about the MRM. No, the situation here are series of pro-MRM editors, who would like this article to ignore WP's clear policies on verifiability, reliable sources, original research etc, to include material that "they" think are about men's rights or the MRM, and who break various WP policies and guidelines while trying to force it in. Yup, they get blocked and topic-banned, and that is going to continue to happen until the light bulb goes on and they actually produce reliable sourced material about the topic. Slp1 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect example of a member of the protection squad above. Slp1, I'm not going to do diff research for you. Answer me this: are there articles in the "feminism" or "women's rights" page that don't mention either term? Yes, of course. In fact, you will find such sources brought in across numerous wp articles that don't directly use the same word in the title, but which address the same topic, which IS THE POINT. I think the solution here is to create Men's rights in any case - this page is hopeless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one that is par for the course:"The deleted references do not mention the men's rights movement." However, the first reference, if you take care to read it, is ENTIRELY about the rights of men within the context of the family leave act, even if the phrase "men's rights" may not appear (I can't seem to search the PDF, so I just scanned it - it may be there nonetheless). There are many other examples of the same thing. It's really the move to "Men's rights movement" that has caused the issue, as the protector squad now reverts on sight anything which doesn't explicitly use the term "men's rights movement". There is clearly a desire by wikipedia editors to add more information on this subject, but the current setup isn't tenable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are a longtime editor, OWK and you should know that if you are going to make accusations or claims then you need to support them with diffs. As far as I am concerned, suggesting I am "a member of the protection squad" is ridiculous given my contributions to this article in the last 6 months, by far the bulk of which have been to to add properly sourced material detailing the MRM's viewpoints, including multiple MR sources. [33][34][35][36][37]. Please stop immediately with these kinds of personal attacks.

As far as your diff is concerned. It was discussed [38] where others (who actually had read the articles) agreed that it was SYNTH to include. I also pointed out in that thread that several sources were grossly misrepresented, something which Memills recently agreed was the case, as he had not actually read the articles he had cited.[39]. Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't present for that conversation, just the diff popped out at me when I looked at the history. I just read the discussion, and it's the same old argument being trotted out here: "the sources don't mention MRM, therefore they are not allowed". However, Men's rights redirects here, and this article is a bit of an amalgalm at the moment. Sources that are ON TOPIC are perfectly acceptable, even if they don't use the words in the title - and even if the topic is within a sub-section of the article. Thus, a source that talks about men's rights w.r.t family leave should be an acceptable source, even if the magical words "men's rights movement" do not appear. For a counter-example, check the sources at Women's_rights_movement_in_Iran - several of the never mention "women's rights movement" and yet, there they sit. No need to say WP:OSE, by the way, I know, but it's still relevant and OSE is just an ESSAY. Anyway, I don't want to rehash that particular discussion from March, but it's one example of what I'm talking about. I honestly think this whole thing would go much easier if we left this article to the dogs and started a new one on the much broader topic of men's rights, that would allow a lot more sources to be brought in and focus could be put on making that a good article. The MRM is just a small part of the story, a part I personally don't really care that much for in any case. Also, it was not a personal attack, it was a reflection on your editing style, and I grant that you have also made many positive contributions to this article, but in any case, I'm sorry you took it that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was an - utterly unfounded - personal attack, but thank you for your apology, even if the apology continues to imply that make "negative" contributions" to this article. Which I don't. I keep it on track from POV editors (of both sides if need be) who want to add synthetic, unverifiable, falsely cited material, as I have just shown you; and I add material from reliable sources on the subject, as I have shown you too. Next time I suggest you actually look through people's contributions first because making such assumptions.

I think you have misunderstood, OWK. I'll think you'll find that it is not the magic phrase "men's rights movement" that is looked for, but any reference to "men's rights" at all. It is likely that people have written edit summaries and explanations sloppily and confusingly about this, but I don't think any editor has ever rejected material that talked about "men's rights" because it lacked the word "movement" or "activists" or "group" or whatever. In other words, any reliable source reference (in the title, in the text) about "men's rights" is welcome for consideration here, and to my mind would and should be accepted. (The only exception is historic material discussing "men's rights" (e.g. menschenrrechte) but which are actually talking about what we would now call "human" or "civil" rights.)

I am not responding to your comments about other pages because it is not relevant to this one, and is an false Otherstuffexists type argument. I don't edit those pages, but for what it is worth, if what you say is true that sources in that article don't mention "women's rights" or "rights of women" or something very similar then I would support the material being removed as synthetic. If you notice synthesis in those articles, then remove it.

I also don't support the creation of a separate page, because as the multiple requests for moves have showed, there is basically no sources about "men's rights" that are not discussed in the context of the "men's rights movement".e.g.[40]. I am going to reissue the challenge issued in the last discussion by Kevin Gorman. "First, find and post at least six reliable sources that deal with "men's rights" as a topic not specifically in the context of the men's rights movement. Then, write and post a coherent statement of the scope you envision for this article, and, since we don't conduct original research, justify that scope with reliable sources that use similar scopes.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)". If it is "men's rights" are indeed a separate topic from the "men's rights movement/activists/groups/whatever" then it should be easy find these sources. To date, nobody has been able to do this. Slp1 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Another article worth comparing is this one LGBT social movements - there is certainly zero requirement that all sources there discuss "LGBT movement" or "Homosexual rights movement" or whatever - and many and diverse sources are brought it to tell the story. Moreover, much of the LGBT movement article is not presented as sections with "Gay rights movement advocates claim that XXX" - which is, quite amazingly, how almost every single section in the MRM one is framed - read it. It almost never just STATEs something, it always says things like "Men's rights activists point to differential prison terms for men and women as evidence of discrimination" instead of "There are differential prison terms for men and women, which MRM use as evidence of discrimination" Do you see the subtlety there, how it carefully disarms every claim by making it ONLY a claim of advocates, instead of stating things agreed upon facts by neutral observers? The women's rights article is framed completely differently in this regard as well. Finally, the requirement that we find sources that discuss "men's rights" but that don't discuss them within the context of "men's rights movement" is also silly - these are closely related, but NOT the same thing - but almost any source that covers one will cover the other - as evidenced by the multiple disputes here. One book worth looking at is this one, if we haven't already: "Men's rights: a handbook for the 80's; Authors William R. Wishard, Laurie Wishard; Publisher Cragmont Publications, 1980" - has anyone seen it? Here is a broader bibliography: [41].

Please go and try to remove the so-called synthesis from those articles I mentioned - it would, in many cases, cripple the articles. You are taking an overly broad view of synthesis IMHO. The references to other articles *are* relevant, because there is an assertion made here, by many editors, that this article is subject to a special local consensus that doesn't apply elsewhere, and showing how other articles are treated is evidence of the difference in treatment of sourcing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors do not accept that the article is about the men's rights movement and how it is described in reliable sources. Instead, they want the article to support the notion that gender-based discrimination against men is real. They seem to wish for a Discrimination against men article where they can add sources about "actual discrimination faced by actual men". Ironically, the sources that they provide to prove that gender-based discrimination against men is real tend to deal with discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and nationality although the men's rights movement, i.e. the topic of the article, does nothing to redress discrimination against gay men, black men (e.g., the MRM opposes affirmative action), immigrant men and so forth.

What we have is actually three problems: 1) Some editors want the article to reflect their belief that discrimination against men is real, not summarize what reliable sources say about the men's rights movement; 2) They want to add sources that do not say anything about the MRM; 3) When they don't get their way they call other editors biased or accuse them of being members of the "protection squad".

I wrote it before and I will write it again: It doesn't matter if a source was writte by a critic or a supported of the MRM. What you need to do is make sure that the sources are reliable, that they say something about the topic of the article, and that they support the material being presented. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Not really gonna respond to that incredibly POV screed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, Obiwankenobi, it would really help if you familiarized yourself with previous discussions and the sources before declaring them worth looking at for this article. The Wishard & Wishard book you mention was discussed here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's an excellent illustration of the lame orthodoxy that reigns over this page. Here we have a whole book on men's rights, but it is excluded because it's not SPECIFICALLY about the men's rights movement. But we can't put it on the mens' rights page, because that page doesn't exist! And if we try to move this page back, the squad says "There are no sources!" - it's really quite comical. I would love you to show me a discussion at LGBT movement or Women's rights movement or Feminism that says "Well, Joe, that article is giving a history of homosexuality in america, but it's *not* about the gay rights movement, therefore, we're gonna have to remove it." This page is the only place that I've seen such nonsense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The book wasn't excluded. One editor considered it not a good source for a particular statement, and in fact, because it was being used in the lead, no source was actually required: problem solved. I don't have a copy of the book but I would consider it to be likely a reliable source for this article, though very old and perhaps not so valuable as more up to date material. Slp1 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your (Obiwankenobi's) claims about the machinations of the "squad" are comical, really. I'll give you one example to dispel the myth that only books that say "men's rights movement" are allowed: Warren Farrell's books are used as sources in the article although he doesn't specifically discuss the men's rights movement in his books. They are used because Farrell self-identifies as a men's rights activist (unlike Benatar and the other authors mentioned by Memills) and is the leading figure in the men's rights movement (unlike Benatar and the other sources mentioned by Memills). Phillip Davies, on the other hand, is not a men's rights activist, does not speak for or about the men's rights movement and that is why his opinion about prison sentences isn't mentioned in the article about the men's rights movement. Get it? There is no wicked agenda at work here. There is WP:OR and then their is WP:Synth. The attempts to insert OR and SYNTH in this article and cry foul when it's removed need to stop. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Would Ernest Belfort Bax's piece about the subjugation of men fall under the umbrella of "mens rights"?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men Metalhead498 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. However, it doesn't ever directly say the phrase "men's rights" so the squad would probably shut it down (but it does discuss rights under law of both sexes, and looks at how some laws are biased against men). But, it's worth a shot. We should start drafting something in userspace. There are many other pieces like this one, that could help put together an early history of MR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On a similar note, has anyone been able to read the new book by Helen Smith? A quick search seems to show some relevency at the very least, and might have some good content. [42] Arkon (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can only see what Amazon gives me, but it seems that she self-identifies as a men's rights activist in the book. The publisher seems to be adequate (ie not a self-publisher), so I think it is fine for her views at least, and possibly the MRM too. --Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Has there been an RfC on the use of "Misogyny" in the lede?

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

---

result=closed. If not, is there any reason it wouldn't be appropriate to start one?William Jockusch (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me. Depending on the language, of course. Federales (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee whiz, lads, the issue has been discussed quite a bit, and recently, too. In reverse chron order:

• Talk:Men's rights movement#Putting a weasel to rest--no, two for the price of one
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Edit request on 22 May 2013
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Lede again, no citations
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead.
• Talk:Men's rights movement#Does the closing sentence of the first paragraph have a legitimate purpose?
• Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_18#perceived?
• Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Archive_17#SPLC_Criticism

Every one of those discussions contains support for some kind of mention of the misogynist issue in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No question it has been discussed. But has there been an RfC?William Jockusch (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the matter has been discussed... but not resolved. I searched the archive and I don't see any evidence of an RfC that addresses the issue. Federales (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a formal RfC when the article is stable and all of its editors have come to an arrangement that they can live with. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

When is there ever a requirement for an RfC? There isn't. Yes, the article is relatively stable, but this particular issue keeps coming up continually. Federales (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I perceive the "misogyny" thing as a slur aimed vaguely at anyone who likes the MRM. As such, I can't live with it.William Jockusch (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I think that some Wikipedia editors hide behind the aegis of the word "scholars" to wedge this kind of politically charged language into articles such as this one. Naturally, such statements can be added with proper attribution, and there's not a problem. But it's an abject failure of NPOV to use "scholarly sourcing" to portray such things as objective, empirical fact. And that's just exactly what some editors want to do. Federales (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just started the RfC below. I'm not very experienced with that template; feel free to fix the formatting if it's wrong.William Jockusch (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should the Men's Rights Movement (or sectors of it) be described as "Misogynist?"

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

---

There has been extensive discussion of whether or not the MRM (or sectors of it) should be described as "Misogynist", with no consensus in sight. Binksternet has helpfully linked some of the discussion above. As of today, the relevant sentence is the following, from the lede:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist

William Jockusch (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OP Comment As a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally. As in, "if you like certain unspecified sectors of the MRM, you are supporting Misogyny." Remove per WP:Label. William Jockusch (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove from the lead; retain in the body with specific attribution to named sources. The vague reference to "scholars" is being used as a crutch to introduce opinionated POV criticism and falsely burnish it with the illusion of objectivity. Federales (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: It's very well sourced, backed by SEVEN reliable sources in the lede itself, a fact that William Jockusch failed to mention in his question above. It also represents a significant proportion of the coverage the MRM gets in reliable sources, so it belongs in the lede. Omiting it is simply POV whitewashing.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Very solidly sourced to scholarly and scholastic books. We are not here to help William Jockusch avoid feeling as if a slur has been aimed at him when the text in question is very neutrally worded, as neutral as possible. As well, the suggestion by Federales goes against the guideline at WP:LEAD which is required to be followed by every Good and Featured article. Significant prose is dedicated to this issue in the article body which is why it is mentioned very briefly in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - well sourced information cannot be removed by any process, wikipedia records well sourced mainstream perspectives without introducing our own biases. Opening an RFC on the basis of being "a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally" shows a) a clear lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and b) a prima facie vested interest. Arguing that a factual description of a topic is somehow a reflection upon you personally is a straw man, and utterly irrelevant to whether the information is encyclopedic or not. Also FYI, using, or appearing to try to use, processes to run around WP:NPOV is inadvisbale in an area under probation--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - as long as which sectors of the movement are described by WP:RS as "Misogynist" and for what reasons are made clear. We have lots of articles describing sectors of various movements as racist or antisemitic or homophobic and sometimes even Islamophobic, so this is not tilling new ground here; and leaving out these factoids because it's only about women... well, don't get me started. Just as long as it follows WP:RS/BLP/NPOV/etc policies, which is what you can continue to argue about (as I have done for hundreds of hours on articles about the Israel/Palestine issue so there's lots of precedent). CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, per sources, although I would suggest rewording it as "The claims and activities of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by scholars and others, and some sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist." Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Censorship of "Marriage Strike"

The Marriage Strike article was redirected to a non-existent page, vandalized and then deleted multiple times. Then references to "Marriage Strike" on wikipedia have been changed to links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights#Marriage_strike

Then the subsection in men's right about marriage strike was silently removed. This is a men's rights issue and the reasons men have been refusing to marry and declining marriage rate since the 1980s has been brought up weekly in press for last decade.

This is also a major social issue in Germany and is constantly talked about in the European press as a reason for declining fertility rates in Europe. I know that some editors may have an agenda, but I do not believe this information should be censored, given the number of references in the media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.228.195 (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Only recently there had been reports of it in Japan. so I second this motion. The Chapter should be reinstated. --Krischik ^T 17:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is correct then there'll be no problem finding reliable sources, that accord with wikipedia's standards of WP:V and WP:DUE, which are specifically about 'marriage strike' and its relationship to the men's rights movement--Cailil ^talk 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be related to this AFD. I've done a quick search of reliable sources, and it is clear that the term "marriage strike" is used in the context of all sorts of issues, including women led strikes (some examples [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50],) men led strikes (more examples [51][52][53]) and joint strikes ([54][55]). Based on google searches an article on the topic of "marriage strike" would need to be about all the different kinds of marriage strikes and based on the preponderance of sources, women striking would probably need to take the bulk of any article. As far as this article is concerned, I think that the Helen Smith book mentioned above [56] is a good source for this as an issue in the US. If there are lots of other reliable sources about the matter in other countries etc then I'm with Cailil and all ears, but the reliable sources do need to be presented.Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Backlash"

Why are we using the word "backlash," which generally has a pejorative connotation, in the fourth sentence of of the lead section: "The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement"? It seems to me that phrasing such as "response to," "reaction to," or even "rebellion against," would be more neutral and yet would still be consistent with what reliable sources say about the movement. Moreover, the sentence as it now stands seems rather awkward. If we are so sure of this "fact" (opinion, really), why not simply say that "the MRM is a backlash to the feminist movement"? Probably because this would sound biased and dismissive. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to revisit the actual article, and the actual references:

• Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52.
• Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter (ed.). Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
• Flood, Michael (2005). "Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism". In Kimmel, Michael S.; Hearn, Jeff; Connell, Raewyn (eds.). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-7619-2369-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Finocchiaro, Peter (March 29, 2011). "Is the men's rights movement growing?". Salon. Retrieved March 10, 2013.
• Messner, Michael (2000). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8039-5577-6.
• Messner, Michael (1998). The Limits of the 'Male Sex Role': An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse. pp. 269–270. The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity... For these men, what is now needed is a movement that will free men, who will then counter these destructive effects of feminism.
• Solinger, Rickie (2013). Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-19-981141-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
• Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
• Mills, Martin (2003). "Shaping the boys' agenda: the backlash blockbusters". International Journal of Inclusive Education. 7 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1080/13603110210143644.
• Williams, Rhys H. (1995). "Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources". Social Problems. 42 (1). University of California Press: 134–135. doi:10.2307/3097008. Retrieved March 4, 2013. Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged... Men's Rights groups... have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement... Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.
• Molly Dragiewicz (12 April 2011). Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. University Press of New England. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-55553-739-5. Retrieved October 22, 2011. While antifeminist father's rights groups are often identified with fringe or radical backlash perspectives and activities...
• Flood, Michael (7 July 2004). "Backlash: Angry men's movements". In Stacey Elin Rossi (ed.). The Battle and Backlash Rage on (PDF). Xlibris Corporation. pp. 261–342. ISBN 978-1-4134-5934-0. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
• Mills, Martin; Francis, Becky; Skelton, Christine (8 June 2009). "Gender policies in Australia and the United Kingdom". In Wayne Martino, Michael Kehler, and Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower (ed.). The problem with boys' education: beyond the backlash. Taylor & Francis. pp. 38–55. ISBN 978-1-56023-683-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• The 1856 Putnam magazine source discusses "men's rights" as a backlash reaction to the upwelling of women's rights.
• Clatterbaugh's 1997 Contemporary perspectives on masculinity says on page 88 "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." Page 80: "Publications like The Backlash! and Liberator clearly see their role as the repudiation of feminism." Page 72: "One wing of this movement [MRM] is an admittedly backlash movement. This movement stridently attacks feminism and portrays men as the true victims in today's society."
• Louise Chappell writes "The so-called backlash against the women's movement has also been identified in many countries, both East and West. It is associated with the men's rights movement that seeks to roll back changes in gender relations..." The Politics of Women's Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, page 121.
• Bob Pease writes, "The focus on men as 'victims' in public discourses about masculinity and the organized backlash of men's rights organizations pose continual threats to the gains that have been made in the last twenty years." A Man's World?: Changing Men's Practices in a Globalized World, page 202.
• Shira Tarrant writes, "Fathers' rights groups overlap with men's rights groups and both represent an organized backlash to feminism." Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex, and Power, page 213.
• Page 152 of the Encyclopedia of Human Ecology: I-Z, says that "At the far end of the continuum is the men's rights (MR) branch of the CMM [Contemporary Men's Movement]. In some respects, this branch might be considered a backlash against feminism. Though the extent to which it is a backlash may have been overstated, it is true that those in the men's rights movement do believe that some of the ways in which men are socialized create inequalities that put men at a disadvantage."
• Christopher Mason writes, "During the 1990s the men's rights movement split into various factions. One group became explicitly a backlash movement that attacked feminism and adamantly stated that men are the victims in today's society. This wing of the movement publishes The Backlash! and the Liberator. The 'gender reconciliation' wing of the men's rights movement and its organization known as the Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality (MERGE) publishes Balance, whose mission is to 'promote the vision of full equality and understanding between the sexes.'" Mason cites Clatterbaugh.
• Robert Menzies writes: "Cyberspace has proven itself to be an eminently fertile forum for the 'backlash' movement in conveying its message and realizing its goals. Men's rights groups have been highly successful in mobilizing the World Wide Web..."
• Barrie Levy writes that "feminist researchers and advocates are worried about a current backlash by 'men's rights' and 'fathers' rights' groups who are challenging women's right to custody of children in family courts..." Women and Violence: Seal Studies, page 121.
• Chris Beasley writes: "The first of these [Men's Rights] was for the most part anti-feminist and represented a political backlash against efforts to overcome discrimination against women. Men's rights groupings are concerned with either men as victims or a reassertion of traditional masculinity." Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers, page 180.
• Greg Marston writes, "Government concern with boys' issues can easily translate into support for men's rights backlashes against women... The issue facing government is how to talk about men and boys without fuelling backlash and men's rights responses..." Analysing Social Policy: A Governmental Approach, page 137.
• Peter Herrmann writes, "Men's rights movements on the other hand have existed for several decades, emerging early as a backlash against feminism..." Citizenship Revisited: Threats Or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries, page 61.
• Victor Seidler writes, "It was also taken up as part of a backlash to feminism by many men who had identified with men's rights movements, especially in the United States. They were angry at the power they had lost to feminism..." Man Enough: Embodying Masculinities, page 6.
• Fidelma Ashe writes, "Men's different responses to feminism are one kind of expression of struggle around the legitimacy of gender relationships. Some men engaged in a backlash form of politics through fathers' rights groups." The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance, page 148.
• Michael Messner writes that "by the late 1970s and early 1980s, men's rights discourse had all but eliminated the gender symmetry of men's liberation from their discourse, in favor of a more overt and angry antifeminist backlash. Feminism was viewed as a plot..." page 41 of Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. This Messner bit is quoted by Amanda Goldrick-Jones in Men Who Believe in Feminism, page 53.
• Jane Kenway writes, "I am disturbed but not surprised at the recent backlash against feminism in Australian education and health systems (this is most evident in the rise of the boys' and the men's rights movements)..." Her chapter is called "Having a Postmodernist Turn or Postmodern Angst", found within After Postmodernism: Education, Politics And Identity, ISBN 9780203975039

All of these writers see fit to examine men's rights in the context of a backlash to feminism. A few of them are ambivalent about the backlash but most state the matter casually, firm in the truth of the origin of the MRM as a backlash. If you think the MRM did not form as a backlash, I wonder what is your version of the origin, and I would like to see the sources which support a contrary origin story. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

An impressive list but you're either missing my point or else intentionally talking around it. I said that phrasing such as "a reaction to" "a response to" or even "a rebellion against" would be more neutral for US to use but would still (read it as "also") be consistent with reliable sources, in fact probably consistent with most of the sources you've just listed. The fact that a lot of sources have used the description "backlash" doesn't mean that those same sources (as well as many others) haven't also described it as a "reaction to" or a "rebellion against" the feminist movement. Why use the most pejorative description available to us when less pejorative descriptions have ALSO been used by reliable sources? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The word backlash is terse, accurate and appropriate. Some MRM people even publish a journal called The Backlash!—these people obviously embrace the term. Their example removes your main leverage, that the word backlash is somehow pejorative. I don't see the need to change it for a lesser formulation. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The word "backlash" is value-laden. It implicitly suggests that the MRM is anti-feminist. It is a label that paints an entire movement. This is inaccurate. As even some of the feminist/post-modernist references listed above note -- there are both anti-feminist and pro-feminist groups that make up the MRM. The pro-feminist groups certainly would not have developed as a "backlash" to feminism. Other groups may take a neutral / uninterested stance re feminism, and just focus on men's issues and rights. Memills (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to Binksternet, the fact that some element within the men's rights movement uses "backlash" as a rallying cry hardly "removes (my) main leverage." In fact, quite to the contrary. Modern social movements are replete with the ironic use of terms. Gays often now embracing insulting terms used against them such as "queer" and "dyke." Some blacks embracing the term "nigger." Conservatives lapping up Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy." No, the fact that some in the MRM use "backlash" as a positive rallying cry doesn't help your case in the least. The issue is whether WE should be using that description, pretty much in Wikipedia's voice, in our introduction, and we shouldn't be. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills, the pro-feminist Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality (MERGE) people established their creed in March 1987 in Alberta, Canada.[57] It was not until 1995 that an American chapter was formed.[58] All of this mild woman-loving MRM activity happened after the feminist backlash of MRM origin which was in the '70s. The "Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements" formed in 1971, and the "Men's Rights Association" formed in 1973. "Men's Liberation" was forming men's and father's rights groups by 1976. In 1977, Frederic Hayward of Cambridge, Massachusetts, formed Men's Rights Inc. He said "The things I'm advocating for men are the same things feminists have been advocating for women."[59] This is of course a backlash to the advances gained by feminism. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"The things I'm advocating for men are the same things feminists have been advocating for women." That's not a "backlash" (which implies opposition). According to that esteemed NPOV reference source, er, Wikipedia, backlash " ...is a popular negative reaction to something which has gained popularity, prominence, or influence." (italics added) Memills (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, a backlash being a "negative reaction" isn't same as the term "backlash" having a pejorative connotation, although, of course, the term does have a pejorative connotation. As both Memills' and Binksternet's latest statements help to show, the movement is too complex for Wikipedia to be using a pejorative, brand-them-all noun such "backlash" to describe it. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition is not so good... the Backlash (sociology) article has no references at all! Merriam Webster says "strong adverse reaction". Jeffery Scott Mio describes the new definition to have come to the fore following Susan Faludi's 1991 book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.[60] Faludi names a wide swath of people as being part of the backlash against feminism, but she does not leave out the MRM. She describes a significant group of men who emerged from survey data in 1986, the men having in common several characteristics: they were mostly single, they had a median age of 33, and they were not succeeding in the workplace. These "downscale" men were underemployed, they were too easily laid off, they had no savings and they had little hope. This group made up 20% of the US adult population, and they were resentful of society, especially resentful of women in their lives who were apparently more powerful than they. These men were not the successful and self-assured men who felt confident of women's new rights. Faludi says that the unsuccessful men who "feared and reviled feminism" "dominated the ranks" of the early men's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet but I don't see anything in what you have just written other than (in the words of my verbose son's Junior high adviser) "superfluous discourse". Faludi is one author and she is a polemicist more than anything else. Who cares?Badmintonhist (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Faludi had a huge influence, no matter your opinion of her. Her book sold millions, a best-seller for nine months, and it sparked further scholarship by others. It led to her next book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, which is about resentful American men, very much on topic. I named her directly because I am getting the impression that she is the elephant in the room. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

While "backlash" may sound negative, the MRM is seen in a negative light, unlike feminism. Unpopular views happen to be unpopular, and we are supposed to report that. TFD (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact BOTH are seen in a negative light by their enemies. What's next? Fascism is seen in a negative light, unlike communism. The Yankees are seen in a negative light, unlike the Red Sox? Badminton is seen in a negative light, unlike tennis? Well that last one might be true in the USA.Badmintonhist (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Binkernet's list has conclusively demonstrated that the men's rights movement is considered a backlash movement by multiple academic and other sources. Would you have us cover this up for some reason? And yes, Badmintonhist, if multiple significant reliable sources made those observations of baseball teams or sports, then we would report that too. To give some more appropriate comparisons, note that what we are seeing here is exactly what happens on pages like Holocaust denial, Homeopathy, Shakespeare authorship question etc]; supporters of the non-mainstream view try to "soften" the language of mainstream sources to put their own fringe views in a better light. But that is now how this encyclopedia is written. Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Then WE should say it rather like you have just said it in your first sentence; i.e. "Many observers have described the Men's Rights Movement as a backlash to the feminist movement", not "it is considered a backlash to the the feminist movement." Of course, even more observers have described it as a response to the feminist movement so there is nothing wrong with describing it that way either. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove that "even more observers have described it as a response to the feminist movement"? Such proof would be helpful in this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why should this article use a different formulation than that used in the Good Article Holocaust Denial article, and as discussed in the 1st FAQ on the talkpage?Slp1 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The hell? Why would we? Arkon (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we'd like this article to be policy-compliant, and that one clearly is?Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So are a couple thousand others, again, why that one? Arkon (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it addresses precisely this issue. Do you have an example of other good or featured article that has addressed this issue and come to a different conclusion? If not, I think this conversation is over. --Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what issue you think that article has in common with this one, that's why I am asking. Arkon (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're more of the detail man, Binksternet. As I've readily confessed many times, I'm horrible with computers. Have trouble even cutting and pasting. For a starter, however, a mere starter. You might pair the phrases "men's rights movement" and "response to feminism" and the phrases "men's rights movement" and "backlash to (or against) feminism and see what you come up with in a Google search. Also take that list of books you presented (and others on the topic) and see if they also describe the MRM as a response to or a "reaction to feminism." I'm off to a singing gig. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The term response usually means positive and proportional, for example, the government responded to feminism by introducing gender equality laws. We would not for example say "the patient responded to treatment" if the treatment killed him, although his death would have been a response. So we could replace "backlash" with "disproportionate negative response." TFD (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Badmintonhist's suggestion that we replace the academic term backlash with "rebellion against" in the name of neutrality is even more problematic. To "rebel" means to oppose someone or something that is dominant or authoritative. People usually rebel against God, the kind, the state, dogmas, etc. The implication would be that feminism is so dominant and authoritative that MRM activists need to rebel against it, an implication not supported by the sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting paradigms in the social sciences, sex/gender differences studies, and politics

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

---

The above discussion reveals the problems that occur when there are two opposing perspectives, yet one (the MRM) is allowed to be described/defined by the other (gender feminism) as if the latter was a neutral arbiter. For example, most in the MRM would not agree that their movement / concerns are a "backlash" to feminism, but that is how the MRM is described in the article. In this case, it would be more accurate to say "According to many feminists, the MRM is a backlash to feminism."

User Peudo made an relevant observation:

"We have to acknowledge that in (the) social sciences, there is no single prevailing paradigm but different schools. We can't just interpret one or a few sources as the only truth in non-exact sciences. ...scholars often have differing views which they sometimes debate in the publications. The feminist school in sociology represents one normative view that inherently disagrees with the MRM. The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject. I think it's a rather fundamental acknowledgement editors must make when editing [an] article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences... "

A problem here is that some editors apparently believe this article should be filtered through the lens of particular paradigms: gender feminism, post-modernism and/or social constructionism. These currently dominate "gender studies" and "women's studies" departments (and even some men's studies programs headed by male feminists). References coming from authors with these perspectives are not NPOV -- they are embedded in, and wedded to, particular theoretical and political perspectives. This is not currently acknowledged in the article.

Many academics in other fields of study hold such "gender studies" departments in very low esteem because they are so thoroughly theoretically in-bred. What passes for scholarship is often not empirical but is instead rhetorical polemics (basically, POV pushing dressed in academic language). A complaint of many in the MRM is that these academic departments have been over-run and lack theoretical and political diversity.

Other approaches to understanding and/or dealing with sex/gender differences reject the basic assumptions of gender feminism and social constructionism (i.e., that sex roles are arbitrary and socially constructed, that "the patriarchy" is designed to oppress women, etc.). Opposing perspectives include scientific positivism, equity feminism, sexual selection theory, parental investment theory, brain sexual differentiation theory (hormonal differentiation of the brain during prenatal development and beyond, etc.).

When there are major, conflicting paradigms regarding a topic, a WP article should acknowledge this. Further when statements are made about the MRM, it would be helpful to note the theoretical perspective of the author(s) -- where the author is coming from. Memills (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Bbb23's warning below, so I will keep this very brief and to the point and will not be responding beyond this. Supporters of minority and fringe positions on topics such as Holocaust denial, Homeopathy, Chiropractic, Aids denialism etc frequently make the same point: that reliable, highest quality sources are internally and constitutionally biased against the topic, and they need to be excluded/their bias attributed/replaced etc, etc. This perspective shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is incumbent on those who wish to redress any perceived imbalance to actually produce sources of other "significant views". Pudeo, as cited here, states that there are "different schools" and "The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject". If either or both of of these two statements are correct, then it should be trivial to produce scholarly or other high quality sources about men's rights and/or the men's rights movement from these different schools. Just as at the other articles, editors who claim that there are such NPOV issues have repeatedly been asked to produce high quality reliable sources to counterbalance those that have been found to date. But the silence has been deafening.

Moving forward, I think it may simply be best to work up some FAQs for this talkpage that we can point quickly and briefly when somebody brings up particular subjects for the umpteenth time. Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

While I accept that some fields of study are dominated by people with a certain view of their subject, scholarship does not exist in isolation. Most scholars on conservatism for example are conservative, but that does not mean that political science textbooks present a pro-conservative view. Also, feminism is not the only academic area where the MRM is studied. Of course one could argue that social sciences are inherently biased, but then that is dispute about the policy rather than something that should be discussed here. TFD (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would be happy to reply. But, frankly the threat of sanctions/bans (below) tends to put a chill on open discussions. To get input from some uninvolved, neutral sources, I've asked for input at WP:3. Memills (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When there are a half dozen and more people discussing an issue, the fine folks at Third Opinion will not take the case. Their purpose is to solve disputes between two individual editors.

Regarding the notion that some people here think "this article should be filtered through the lens of particular paradigms", I say you failed to prove it. I think that existing scholarship on the MRM topic is scholarship, not advocacy. If you want to bring in scholars with a different background, you are welcome to find them. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The only sources that matter Memills are third party mainstream scholars. If you don't like what they say ... tough. And no just because scholars take an ideological stance does not make them unreliable. Trying to ban certain scholarship from this page (as you are doing above) is the opposite of NPOV. Again your above post shows a clear misunderstanding of it. Scholars do not need to be neutral. Our record of their work needs to be neutral. Take Cold Fusion as an example - we don't write about that topic in a supportive way, we write about it in the way 3rd party reliably sourced scholars do. We record what the mainstream discourse is. If that discourse on Cold Fusion changes in 5 years then the page will change. You've been fond of comparing articles to Feminism well here's an apt example. If wikipedia existed in 1901 the Feminism page would reflect teh dominant view of feminism at that time (dismissive). Indeed if wikipedia existed 150-200 years ago the topic of Aether would be recorded as if it were fact, because that was how it was recorded then. It's not wikipedia's job to change the discourse on a topic and attempting to use this site to advocate for a change of discourse in the real world is highly disruptive--Cailil ^talk 19:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are just a couple of scholars who make the case for men's issues and rights, and who suggest that a feminist lens on those issues is biased.

From psychology professor Roy Baumeister's book "Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men":

The reasons that it has recently become taboo to say positive things about men are rooted in the women's movement and its wide-ranging influence (p. 3) ...perhaps we are more accustomed seeing how society exploits women, but perhaps that is all the more reason to take a look at the other side too. (p 6) Any fair assessment of modern American feminism would have... to acknowledge... that some of it has fostered hatred and readily sacrificed the pursuit of truth of the sake of self-interested political gain. (p. 8) ...I strongly suspect that there is no point in debating with feminists. The business of feminism was aptly summarized by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, two scholars who have spent their careers in Women's Studies programs and who wrote a thoughtful book, "Professing Feminism," on what passes for scholarly activity in these departments. Crucially they pointed out that most feminists do not pay any attention to criticisms from non-feminists. They listen a little bit to criticism from each other--but that mainly concerns the purity of their commitment to feminist politics and doctrine. When scientists criticize each other, they focus mainly on research methods and how well different possible theories fit the data. That sort of thing is not common in Women's Studies departments, according to Patai and Koetgre. That means that even if an outsider like me made the most brilliant correct, and insightful point against some feminist claim, the feminists wouldn't listen or change their view one iota. (p. 9)

A couple of quotes from philosophy professor David Benatar's book "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Boys and Men":

I distinguished between egalitarian feminists and partisan feminists. The former seek equality of the sexes, whereas the latter seek the advancement of female interests (irrespective of whether that advances equality). Partisan feminism does entail some unfairness to men. (p. 240) ...Feminist excesses are also to be found in the rationalizations that are frequently employed. ...they curiously always reach the conclusion that it is the interests of females that ought to prevail. There is always some reason, as we have seen, why the interests of females are of paramount importance. (p. 243) ...Perhaps the most serious cases of feminist excess are those in which scholars -- many themselves feminists -- have been threatened or harassed by highly partisan and intolerant feminists who have deemed their work threatening. (p. 244)

Memills (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That a few scholars see others as taking a negative view does not disqualify that body of work. The point remains as above, 2 scholars might consider the mainstream view on Cold Fusion as biased. That does not mean those mainstream views are censored/altered/prejudiced in order to reflect a preferred POV. What you are arguing for is not a neutral point of view it is a neutered point of view. A truncated record of scholarship and thus a misrepresentation of the mainstream of 3rd party reliable sources. Mentioning Benatar and others with the above POV is fine as long as the record is accorded due weight, but attempting to use their existence to give them the appearance of equal weight vis-a-vis other views or to reduce the weight of other mainstream views is POVpushing. Nor is appropriate to use this page for soapboxing about subjects--Cailil ^talk 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not seeing the forest for the trees -- this issue is embedded in the larger conflict two major, conflicting theoretical paradigms in the social sciences. To wit: social constructionism vs. biological/environmental interactionism. The latter rejects gender feminism's theoretical assumptions regarding the genesis of sex roles / sex differences as being solely socially constructed.

"A few scholars" is incorrect. Here is a list of just a few books by nature-nurture interactionists (and I'll limit the list to only those with a female author or coauthor) who reject the gender feminist perspective on sex differences:

Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (1983) Sex, evolution and behavior.

Helen Fisher (1983) The Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior

Laura Betzig (1986) Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History

Laura Betzig, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder and Paul Turke (1988) Human Reproductive Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective

Helen Fisher (1994) Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray

Linda Mealey (2000). Sex differences. NY: Academic Press.

Nancy Etcoff (2000) Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.

Bobbi Low (2000). Why sex matters. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Anne Campbell (2002). A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women

Louise Barrett, Robin Dunbar, and John Lycett (2002) Human Evolutionary Psychology

Olivia Judson (2003). Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex

Louann Brizendine The Male Brain (2010), The Female Brain (2011)

Judith Lipton and David Barash (2009) How Women Got Their Curves

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (2011) Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding

Maryann Fisher (2013) Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women

The suggestion that only a few scholars reject the foundational theory of gender feminism -- the social constructionist view of the genesis of gender roles -- is incorrect. Memills (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like grist for another, different mill. This article is about the men's rights movement, and Wikipedia is not going to dump good sources just because you have argued in a general sense against their perceived bias, because the authors are feminist scholars. This grist should be carried to some other article, one about how unfair it is for non-feminists to argue with feminist scholars. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Memills' list is a series of texts closely related to evolutionary psychology; none of them are about MRM, so have no relevance to this article. Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've checked Memills' quotes as far as I can and note an extreme cherrypicking sources has been going on; as one might guess from the ellipis, I suppose. Here are a few other cherrypicked quotes to balance out the quotes he has provided:

• "The Global World Forum recently rated most nations on various dimensions of equality, and it found not a single country in which women generally enjoy superior status over men. Nor did the Forum find full equality was reached in any. Thus, men have higher status than women in every country in the world today". Baumeister p4
• "Many cultures do exploit women, some more than others, and sometimes cruelly." Baumeister p.5
• "Nor is this book a pitch to gain victim status for men. The modern widespread eagerness to claim victim status for one’s own group makes me ill. If you read this book and end up thinking the main point was that men instead of women should be considered victims, or even assume this status alongside women, then you have completely missed my point". Baumeister p. 5
• "Any fair assessment of modern American feminism would have to assert that on the one hand, there has been some brilliant and insightful scholarship that has advanced our collective understanding of the truth. Likewise, it would have to acknowledge, on the other hand, that some of it has fostered hatred and readily sacrificed the pursuit of truth for the sake of self-interested political gain. Feminism is a big tent, covering many different views and attitudes." p8 I have bolded the parts of this sentence that Memills has chosen to quote above -draw your own conclusions.

Since I can't do the same for the Benatar book as I don't have it to hand at present, I will point out a comment or two from a generally positive review from The New Statesman. [61]

• "Benatar is not a Backlash merchant. He does not argue that men have a worse time than women; that feminism has gone too far; that men are now the oppressed sex; or that sexism against women does not exist. On the contrary, he repeatedly details the many forms of injustice faced by women across the world, and applauds efforts to address them. Indeed the clue is in the title: not “The New Sexism” or “The True Sexism” but “The Second Sexism.” Second, meaning in addition or secondary to the first sexism which is, of course, against women. Benatar does not blame feminism for anti-male discrimination, rightly noting that most such injustices long predate the women’s movement."
• "Nor, BBC Online readers, is Benatar a champion of the Men’s Rights Movement. In the book he notes astutely that men’s groups can become “fora for self-pity and for ventilating hyperbolic views that are not checked or moderated by alternative opinions.”"

I am once again appalled, Memills, at the lengths that you will go to to misrepresent and misquote sources.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, I am appalled too. Our mutual appallment is irrelevant here, tho.

I am afraid we are talking past one another. My point, again, is this. There is no one "main stream" paradigm in the social sciences. There are two primary paradigms (social constructionism vs. nature-nurture interactionism), and their basic assumptions are in conflict. Feminist theory is based on social constructionism. Scholars and other folks who reject social constructionism are naturally more skeptical of claims derived from feminist theory / social constructionism.

Given clashing paradigms, it is a service to the reader to identify from which paradigm critiques are coming from. For example, in the creationism/evolution debate, it is helpful to the reader to identify the paradigm -- e.g., "According to creationists, the complexity of the design of the eye reveals its 'irreducible complexity.'" "However, according to evolutionary biologist, the eye is indeed complex, but that complexity is not irreducible and can be explained by step-by-step cumulative selection over time." Without these identifying 'paradigm prefixes', the reader sees "The eye reveals irreducible complexity." (long reference list) and "The eye is complex, but not irreducibly so." (long reference list). This only leaves the reader with irreducible confusion. Identifying the paradigm helps to clarify the underlying assumptions and the fundamental issues.

Similarly, here it is appropriate to also include 'paradigm prefixes': "According to many feminist scholars, the MRM is misogynist." "According to many MRM proponents, the MRM is not misogynist."

This is the crux of my (and other editors) suggestion. It is not difficult to do, and it would make the article both more accurate and clear. Memills (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Warnings

This page is under article probation. That means that as an uninvolved admin I have broad discretion to impose sanctions for disruptive editing on any page related to the MRM, including this page. I am particularly troubled by the backlash section above and the newly added paradigm section just above. Specifically, the edits by Memills and by Badmintonhist are disruptive. They are similar to the edits that led to a topic ban imposed on another editor. The two users are defying consensus as to what should and should not be included in these articles and pushing an agenda that is clear on its face. Their defense that the "other side" is pushing their own agenda is unsupported by any objective measure. The disruption comes not only from their unsupported points of view but also by pushing them beyond what can be considered reasonable discourse on Wikipedia. Although warnings are not required for me to impose sanctions, I decided that intervening now might head off bans and/or blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

disruptive? Seriously? Someone posts a thoughtful critique of the prevailing dogma and you call it disruptive? Why don't you let the eds here discuss in peace without your warnings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What a shameless load of hogwash, Bbb23! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If by dogma you, Obiwankenobi, mean the requirement to stick to reliable sources then the critique of said "dogma" is not very helpful. Is there any doubt that all the cited references describe the MRM as a backlash? No. As a side note, I do not consider a discussion where you describe editors as members of a "protection squad" as particularly peaceful. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also see WP:Multiple Editor Ownership.

However, rather than trading barbs back and forth, or threatening sanctions on editors who edit in good faith, a review of some these issues by uninvolved neutral third parties, e.g., WP:peer review, seems long overdue and might be helpful. Memills (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1929 article

This definitely exists and is written by a reputable source, so I included it in the history section. Any improvements to suggest? I included an excerpt to establish what Moulton wrote. Ranze (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Scholars

Noticed a lot of edits in June regarding a "scholars" statement tending to give authority to perception of the movement. Here's the current incarnation as I see it:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

I am wondering if perhaps "feminist scholars" could be appropriate, this would require confirming whether or not all scholars are feminist or not, as it was alleged in edit history that some were. Furthermore, I find this sentence lacks clarity. We can break it into several points based on construction:

1. The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars
2. The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by others
3. sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist

Now the confusion here: when we say "described as misogynist" it is unclear WHO is saying this. Is it 'scholars' or is it 'others' or is it both? I would like to see this sentence restructured to make this more clear. Really "critiqued claims and activities" is somewhat vague I think, I question the purpose of such a vague statement. Honestly I question the relevance of "others" at all.

Look at if we said this about any other issue:

"Scientist's claims and activities have been critiqued by others"

Is that important? Does it belong in encyclopedia? Literally every topic under the sun must have inevitably been 'critiqued' by 'others'. I think we need to establish a higher level of importance here. 'Others' is not notable. 'Scholars' is, and other groups might be, but if there are others besides scholars whose opinions on MRM are notable, I think we need a more specific description imparting why they are relevant moreso than 'others'.

We can do a name breakdown here, of the references that go with this statement, and define who they are. Here are the seven references I see (currently bulleted 4 to 10) after this statement:

1. Sarah Maddison
2. Kenneth Clatterbaugh
3. Chris Beasley
4. Michael Kaufman and Michael Kimmel
5. Robert Menzies
6. Michael Kaufman and Harry Brod
7. Bob Pease

• Clatterbaugh, Kenneth C. (1997). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: men, women, and politics in modern society (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-2701-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

So going by alphabetized surname, here are the "scholars" we should probably just go and verify are scholars, and then see whether or not they identify as feminist:

1. Brod: LACKS Wikipedia article
2. Beasley: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioned him on disambig
3. Clatterbaugh: PhD in philosophy, chair of Philo in U of Washington, also wrote "The Oppression Debate in Sexual Politics" in "Rethinking Masculinity: Philosophical Explorations in Light of Feminism" in 1992
4. Kaufman: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioned him on disambig
5. Kimmel: categorized under "american feminists"
6. Maddison: PhD in " the Discipline of Government and International Relations", wrote "Collective identity and Australian Feminist Activism"
7. Menzies: LACKS Wikipedia article, mentioend him on disambig
8. Pease: LACKS Wikipedia article, will discuss changing Robert Allen Pease's page into a disambig, pretty certain not same guy.

Establishing who these 8 people are is only the first step though. Then we actually have to interpret the references. Clearly the point where we can assume others to correctly interpret references in good faith has past and we should discuss them one by one to see what each is actually saying. I believe every reference should provide an excerpt which we can show to be correctly interpreted to support how it is paraphrased in points in the articles.

So, for those five who lack a Wikipedia article:

1. Brod
2. Beasley
3. Kaufman
4. Menzies
5. Pease

Please create articles for them and/or establish who they are as reputable scholars.

For those with articles:

1. Kenneth Clatterbaugh
2. Michael Kimmel
3. Sarah Maddison

These are perhaps, due to having enough notability to have Wikipedia articles about them, perhaps who we should focus on as the 'scholars' of the group. All three have written in association with feminism though, so their neutrality on labelling MRM as 'misogynist' is debatable. Do we have any scholars who don't write about feminism who hold such an opinion? Ranze (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:IRS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. There is absolutely no requirement for sources to have articles written about scholars/sources to show that they are notable/reputable and their views "significant". It is a wholly novel suggestion, that has no basis in policy at all. Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Again this is anti-NPOV. This is an attempt to label or segregate 3rd party mainstream reliable sources that may not fit with how elements of the men's rights movements' want to be described. Wikipedia's policies are crystal clear on this Ranze. Wikipedia records all mainstream reliably sourced material without interpretation--Cailil ^talk 13:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IRS, there is no need to analyze the sources as individuals, to strike down certain of them because of their background. Suggesting that we do so smacks of advocacy for the MRM topic. This discussion should be hatted as out of process. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment in the section above: It is appropriate to include 'paradigm prefixes' to help the reader identify from which of several clashing paradigms a claim is coming: "According to many feminist scholars, the MRM is misogynist." "According to many MRM proponents, the MRM is not misogynist." Without them, it is confusing and less informative. That is all that is being requested here. It would make the article both more accurate and informative. Memills (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, Memills. There are, indeed, numerous wordings preferable to the current"The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement" which, in addition to its POV problems, is also stylistically awkward. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion above, edited the lede to read:

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It has contestsed claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it has identified as issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[1][2] The men's rights movement has 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), and health that they believe are biased towards women.

Feminists have critiqued the MRM's claims and activities, and they have accused some sectors of the movement as being misogynist.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] According to many feminists, the MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement.[10] However, according to many MRM activists, the MRM, or masculinism, is not necessarily an oppositional perspective to feminism, but is complmentary to it. [11]

Mathsci immediately reverted, claiming POV (disagree -- identifying paradigms, per discussion above promotes NPOV and accuracy) and he claimed that changes were not discussed on the Talk Page. They were (above). Rather than immediately revert (which just encourages an edit war), it would have been helpful for Mathsci to discuss the edits here first. Memills (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)