Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cathbard (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 12 May 2010 (Undid revision 361625641 by Cathbard (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rich Zubaty

Rich Zubaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed this article because Mr. Zubaty himself has been busily creating links to it from other articles. When I read it, though, his chief claims to notability seem to be three self-published books and a podcast, and when I performed a google news search, I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources writing about his importance. In my opinion, there is not enough verifiable information currently available to write an article about this subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep But in MY opinion the books are well-researched and full of references. Other authors, many from academic backgrounds, are quoted at length. The point of Wikipedia is to BUILD an article step by step. As someone who had read some of Mr. Zubaty's books I vehemently DISAGREE that this article should be deleted. Indeed, it should be allowed to be expanded just like other articles. Wikipedia should NOT be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.226.223 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC) \[reply]
    • — 86.184.226.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Note: This user, based on my recent interactions, is almost certainly Rich Zubaty- see my talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong: As a quick verification of IP addresses will show, not even a good author can be in two parts of the world at once. So much for FisherQueen’s judgement and so much for her opinions. I am NOT Rich Zubaty, but someone who has read his books. And someone who is trying contribute to Wikipedia but keeps having his additions removed by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, I'd love to expand this article, and started out by trying to do so. Wikipedia's rules only allow me to use information that doesn't come directly from Zubaty, though- I need to use information from neutral sources like newspapers and magazines, or books that have been written about him, not by him. I couldn't find even one source that I could use to expand the article. If you know of any, that's the best way to help the article, because we aren't allowed to keep information that isn't verified in sources like that, and in this article, removing the unsourced information leaves no article at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references, not notable; N.B. IP clearly refuses to read the guidelines (forced reinsertion of inappropriate links, etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • DO NOT DELETE. I read Mr Zubaty's first book years ago and found it to be one of a very limited number of books I have read that had a significant impact on my own thinking. He is a free thinker and not tethered by the conventions of political correctness. I found this refreshing as I also found his ideas stimulating. Suggesting to delete his page here seems to make absolutely no sense to me. Unless different ideas that don't match with political correctness are a reason for deletion I can't think why someone would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmccull (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Zubaty is a well known activist and author in the men's rights movement. To delete his page would be no different than deleting that of a similar feminist icon from the women's movement. Making any distinction between self published books and those published by more traditional methods is discriminatory, especially give the bias in publishing houses regarding men's rights literature.

Paul Elam Editor-in-Chief Men's News Daily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Baehr Publisher, Menletter.org My newsletter, Menletter.org, contains a review of one of Rich Zubaty's books at http://menletter.org/articles/What Men Know That Women Don't.htm. His is a voice many may find irritating, and the content of his thoughts may not be universally accepted. I see these as no reason to delete his bio. Menletter is in its ninth year of publication. Menletter (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't reliable sources, and neither are forums, which means the first, second, and fourth items on your list are out. I didn't see an article about Zubaty with any information at "fathersforlife," just a quote from one of his books. We could use that to verify that quote is in the book, if we needed to, but that's all I saw. I can't figure out what "angryharry" has to do with Zubaty, nor can I figure out whether it would be a reliable source- it looks like some guy's blog, not like a published newspaper or magazine or a significant source of information, and I didn't see anything about Zubaty- maybe I looked in the wrong place. Has he been interviewed in a real newspaper, or in a print magazine, or written about on a web site that isn't a blog? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zubaty has requested that his page be deleted
I am not sure if this is significant, but a user claiming to be Zubaty has specifically requested that this page be deleted. His statement is as follows, "DELETE my page. I just had someone from Huffington Post link to my wiki page at which point I found out that all my links have been removed. Sabotage. I would rather people link directly to my web site. Rich Zubaty." Ebikeguy (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. This is a transparent attempt at censorship. This is obvious by the attempt to belittle the man with the "self published" comment. It is ironic because Zubaty warns against suckling at the corporate teat in his books. He is a well known activist being persecuted by this scurrilous attack by an opponent. Here is a link to a search on a well known activist site with many references to him ** http://news.mensactivism.org/search/node/Zubaty

Quite frankly I find this attempt to censor Zubaty absurd. This is a feminist trying to censor a men's rights activist on the grounds that he has little presence in the corporate press - which is also a group that he opposes. Men's rights are largely ignored by the press, are we going to make Wikipedia also a means of suppressing things that are not deemed politically correct by feminists and the corporate world? Outrageous!! --Cathbard (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • — Cathbard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Yes, I wondered when one of you would start getting insulting with me personally. Looking at his web site, I figured that most of the people in this discussion would object to a female editor explaining the rules to them. If that's a problem, I certainly don't mind if you read the rules for yourself. I've linked them in this discussion already several times. I can't promise that no women were involved i writing them, but many men were involved; if I recall the last set of statistics correctly, there are more men than women editing Wikipedia, so you can read WP:BIO comfortable in the knowledge that they are at least mostly written by people with penises. Normally, people start getting insulting in these discussions when they've realized that the person they want to write about really doesn't meet the notability criteria; is that the position you're in? You can still write about him on your own web site, where you can make the rules yourself and don't have to let any women participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pointing out that you are a self-professed feminist attacking a men's movement activist, not that you were just a woman. That gives you a vested interested in silencing people like Zubaty. It is you that is getting insulting (what a surprise!). He is a notable activist referred to regularly on the net even if the corporate press ignore him like they do with practically every aspect of the MRM. Your attempt at censorship is blatantly part of your feminist agenda and should be dismissed out of hand as such. --Cathbard (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand that you are blaming my identification of myself as a feminist, rather than your own inability to find reliable sources discussing a person you claim is notable. You are incorrect, but the only way to really test that is to provide two or three sources which unimpeachably meet the reliable sources guidelines, and then see if I try to "censor" you by removing them from the article or continuing to support deletion. I, too, am frequently discussed on the internet, but that does not mean I am a useful subject for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry Fisher, but you seem to be making rules up as you go along. Rich Zubaty is an author. You have seen proof that he is an author. Now think reader for one minute. Someone hears about Rich Zubaty. So he wants to look him up. He tries out Wikipedia, but all he is able to see is the bare minimum that Ebikeguy allows him to see. This is censorship. Moreover, it is a very shabby treatment of an author. And as he differs substantially from someone with your worldview, you have a smoking gun in your hand -- at the right place at the right time pointing in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have given you several links within the MRM but apparently they don't count to your feminist-centric mind. He is notable within the movement as we have clearly demonstrated. Your objection to the movement itself (as your derogatory comments have clearly shown) does not make his notability any the less but does support my assertion that this is purely a feminist attack on the MRM and has nothing to do with the rules.--Cathbard (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rich Zubati is a well know within his field of writing. He is also am active painter and artist. I can not see why deleting this page would be justified. Wikipedia is a good place for people to come to find out about people who are not easy to investigate otherwise. I often come to Wikipedia to find out about obscure people and events. If you want to continue to provide this sevice then certainly I would not delete this page.

DO NOT DELETE Rich Zubatay is an independent thinker who deserves to be heard, not censored. So many voices like Rich's have been censored, mainly because they aren't mainstream. Well, many people are tired of mainstream. I cannot believe the lengths some people will go to muzzle the voices of people they don't agree with. His thoughts on the corporatization of America has been very enlightening, particularly in "Corporate Vampires". Are encourage everyone to check out his books on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/002-8815806-6782464?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Rich+Zubaty&Go.x=11&Go.y=12). But here is the bottom line: many other people have been published on Wikipedia for contributing much less than Rich Zubatay. Mandel17 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 66.241.4.20 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE or DO... Rich, it's just wikipedia. my two cents: i read rich's book 'what men know.." during the lowest point of my life, the great divorce fiasco of '03. i do not exaggerate when i say his book not only enlightened me and provided salve to my torment, his book significantly contributed to my sanity, reatining my personal freedom and eventual recovery from the court-societal humiliation and pillaging of a man. lastly, what is FisherQueen infering by her moniker? that she's the female version of mythical wounded king who's kindgom suffers as he does? in mythology or reality women can just swap out a feminine archetype for a male despite the fact that the myth's, or reality's, male hero is the essence to begin with? men have built our modern world, because they were men. women did not because they are not capable of, or they would have. later rich! suck it, wikipedia! unsigned —Preceding comment added by User:130.76.32.167 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT DELETE I have known Rich for over ten years and have appreciated his books, video's and podcasts. His #3 podcast is an absolute classic in MRM and a critical view of the past 40 years of American History. Rich is often quoted by other men's rights activists and is well respected in the movement. He's our Fisher King User:QIM —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. While it is clear that Mr. Zubaty must stop editing inappropriately, it seems equally clear that his is a noteworthy voice in the men's movement and that he is deserving of an article. The outpouring of endorsements on this page lead me to conclude that, while this article needs work, it should remain. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Has it occured to you that maybe this didn't just happen but rather they were asked to come here and comment? It seems fairly obvious to me that Mr. Zubaty has asked people that he feels are sympathetic to his agenda to come and comment here. I count at least six single purpose accounts with few or no other edits in this debate, it's pretty clear there has been some canvassing going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your points, I wish you hadn't been such a big meanie about expressing them. Or am I just being a manhole here?  ;) Ebikeguy (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it looks like someone edited his article per his previous suggestions on his talk page. It is now an non-encyclopedic pile of self-promotion. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I would like someone to edit it back to the last quasi-encyclopedic version and protect it pending the resolution of this silliness. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or it isn't canvassing but rather an indication of the man's popularity that people were so outraged by the proposed deletion that they created accounts purely to object to the plan. --Cathbard (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. How did the proposed deletion come to everyone's attention? I don't think it's been reported in the New York Times just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. My argument for not deleting Mr. Zubaty's entry comes as a podcaster. Podcasting, by its very nature, is not intended for people who are already regarded as "notable" by cultural fiat, or media/academic manipulation. It is a powerful forum for real people with something significant to say, to say it, and they sink or swim based on their popularity. If they sink, they were not notable, if they swim, they are notable. I disagree with many things that Mr. Zubaty says, yet I regard his example as a strong influence on myself, other viewers of his work, and other podcasters. To say he is not notable in the podcasting world is naive, and incorrect. The size of the audience does not matter in podcasting. What matters is the IMPACT that a podcaster makes, and whether or not they endure despite having no corporate resources. To read so many words of support here, and then proceed to blow Zubaty off as irrelevant, is to challenge the significance of every member of his audience. How dare you! In my opinion, based on what I have seen, this is a veiled attempt to censor unpopular opinions. I try to take Wikipedia seriously, despite the fact that controversial topics and individuals are almost always edited to favor the more rabid side of the controversy. But moving to actually delete a controversial figure is unacceptable. It is tantamount to virtual assassination. In the context of what Rich Zubaty does, he is very significant, and even if I disagree with him I regard him are more notable than 95% of the individuals featured in mainstream media (including publishing houses; hence the significance of self-publishing), because the man demonstrates how to think for yourself. Those who wish to censor him only demonstrate the very problem that prevents so many people from thinking for themselves. Mr. Zubaty is a veteran podcaster, who has labored long and hard against terrible obstacles to establish his niche in the New Media without even the intent of developing an overwhelmingly large audience. That is significant, and that is notable. He has accomplished more than I have in this regard--and I teach podcasting to others! He deserves recognition for his many accomplishments, which never cease to impress me (again, even though I may disagree with his IDEAS). I remain unsigned because I see no point to "joining" a web information tool that is so easily manipulated by fanatics. This topic should never have been raised in the first place, especially under such a transparent pretense. I've lost respect for Wikipedia, to even have to waste my time stating the obvious here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.56.138 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE This attempt at censorship apparently based on nothing but a personal dislike of Mr Zubatys veiws is abhorrent.

Mr Zubaty is widely read and on a personal note his writtings have influenced my thinking in a number of areas,his writing is clear his arguments well thought out and well referenced for source. If censorship like this is allowed to continue then wikipedia will have failed in its object to be an open source of information and beome the site of group think that so many accuse it of being. Mr Zubaty has written several books and articles,and the article about him as far as Ican tell is factually accurate,leave it alone!Peter318200 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


MORE LINKS

have any of you taken a gander at FisherQueen's wiki page thingy?! what a horror show. rich and co., screw this wiki crap. if people like FisherQueen (yes, i'm judging) are responsible for administering this site and it's content, why would you want to be associated with it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) get a load of this wiki-message: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."[reply]

why i "came here" wiki is none of your damn business... majority vote? oh, i see, if the reason must meet some effing guideline to post on this stupid, nonsensical lesbian feminazi site. EFF YOU WIKIPEDIA! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rick Zubati is well know in his field. Wikipedia is a valuable place for looking up people who are hard to find in other places. I often use Wikipedia to research people who would otherwise be impossible to locate. So I think entries like these are important and certainly should not de deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.91.193 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. It is clear that supporters of Zubaty have been discussing the proposed deletion among themselves, and encouraging fellow supporters to weigh in. This would not necessarily be a problem, but the vast majority of those supporters either do not understand the notability criteria, or do not understand the reliable source guidelines, or have not yet read those rules closely. I understand that many of you have a serious problem with being told the rules by a woman, so I beg you to read the rules for yourselves- no matter how many supporters say 'do not delete,' they will be ignored if they are not explaining how Zubaty meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, supporting their answers with legitimate sources. I've tried several times to draw people's attention to the rules, and met mainly with personal insults indicating that, because I am a lesbian and a feminist, I must be making the rules up as I go along, to harm Zubaty. I am both a lesbian and a feminist, but the rules have been in place for years, and I didn't even participate in writing them - they were in place long before I joined Wikipedia. The rules were written mostly by men, so you can trust that they are good and right. Please, please, please, read the rules for yourself, and understand them, before making your decision about whether this article can be kept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Picture. But isn't this losing sight of the big picture? I want to read something about Rich Zubaty. I turn to the Wikipedia and I find next to nothing. Why? Because rules is rules, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big picture? If you want to read something about Rich Zubaty, and don't think Wikipedia's rules are important to that, you should go to his web site- there is information there. If you want to help Wikipedia have an article about him, though, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this guy outside of reviews of his books on websites that have "men" in their domain names. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I've done some searching, but I can't really find anything that isn't self-published or single-purpose promotional sites (but left at "weak" because I'm not certain on my assessment of said sites) -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even particularly notable within the bounds of his own movement. Most of the arguments seem to be made by people unable to accept the underlying precepts we work by here: notability, verifiability, NPOV, that sort of trivia. All of these, of course, are trumped by his possession of The Truth™ in its pure and shiny form. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE If Rich Zubaty isn't notable then how did you find this site? What makes this site worth attacking? My guess is that many of you are not simply trying to obey Wikipedia rules, but rather fulfill a personal agenda. His videos are excellent, his thoughts are very clear, and Rich Zubaty is definitely NOTABLE to me. Given the unofficial nature of this site it seems absurd to question whether Zubaty's publishing methods are "official". 66.171.241.105 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.

DO NOT DELETE None of this NOTABILITY business is as cut and dried as Fisherqueen would have us believe. “A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”

These are the wiki criterion for notability.

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

The Zubaty article has provided you three in-depth references by independent sources: two book reviews and one personal interview. Plus he's been on WGN radio twice, BBC TV, the Montel Williams TV show, and hundreds more electronic media shows. And then there are his hundred hours of podcasts and foreign media appearances, like Australian Broadcasting Company TV, CFRB Toronto and literally hundreds more, most of them pre-computer and pre-google, so you don't have any handy dandy references to those... do you? I read an in-depth article about him in about 1994 or 1995 in the Chicago Sun-Times and I cannot find that in a Sun-Times site search. I saw him on Chicago Tribune TV, CLTV, around the same time, and find nothing of that via google. Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Zubaty certainly meets this criterion.

Another criterion for notability is: "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"

You can see from the outpouring of support that Zubaty has made a recognized contribution to his field that has endured for 20 years. He has an international following despite the fact that he has been an anti-corporate crusader, particularly critical of corporate media. Have you NO idea what that means? That means academia and corporate media WON'T give him a platform. Just like Noam Chomsky. But Zubaty doesn't get by teaching linguistics at MIT to pay his bills. He advocates full time for men and against corporations and war.

Zubaty meets this criterion.

Then we have: Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably INFLUENTIAL IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Rich Zubaty is an original thinker who has brought new memes into play: Men are not the oppressors of women, women are not morally superior to men, men are better at relationships than women, women are more materialistic than men, and dozens more. He is NOTABLE as an ACADEMIC who did not bow to political correctness to hang onto his job. And he STILL has secondary sources to attest to his notability.

Zubaty clearly meets this criterion.

opinion makers: 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

That is clear from all the postings of support which represent a tiny slice of his readership. His books have been selling on amazon.com for ten years.

Zubaty meets this criterion too.

There is also a wiki criterion I ran across but cannot re-find that said just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they have done something. Zubaty is not famous. But he has done something. He is is notable for his original contributions to revealing the societal prejudices against a despised and demonized class of underlings – men.

And then let's look at this. Here is a person who did one thing, in 1967, spent the time since in and out of mental institutions, and has NO references whatsoever, but no one is putting flags on her article or hounding her about notability. OH...but she's a feminist. How precious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone

Is wikipedia just a politically correct dumpster for forty-year-old bread? 186.16.7.3 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are at least trying to make an argument based on Wikipedia policies, that's somewhat refreshing in what has mostly been a shouting match so far. Let me just mention a few things: How many people are participating in this discussion is not going to be considered proof that Mr. Zubaty is notable. Just about anyone can find ten people on the internet who share their views. The argument that other articles exist that are no better or even much worse is generally not considered valid. This just means there is some more cleaning up that needs doing. That you picked a radical feminist out of the millions of biographies on here as your example is telling of your own agenda. If you think it should be deleted, register an account and nominate it, and we can discuss that on exactly the same terms as this article. This is what needs to be made clear here: this is not about the validity of Mr. Zubaty's positions or the men's movement in general, it is only about whether he meets the general notability guideline, and a decent case has been presented that he does. What would be good would be if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article, that would go a long way toward sealing the deal.
As a more general comment to everyone participating, please keep your remarks on topic and do not resort to attacking the participants as persons, as opposed to refuting their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox: Please tell us exactly what you mean by, "if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article" ... and we will do that. Whatever it is. Can you refer us to a particular example page where this kind of "fleshing out" is being done? What it looks like? We're new at this. We don't get it. We need some guidance.

Here are more online pages with mentions of Rich Zubaty, from other wikipedia articles to the Wall Street Journal to third party podcast rebroadcasters and feminist blogs. How do we use these in his article?:

Sterling Institute of relationship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Institute_of_Relationships#cite_note-zubaty-4

Wall Street Journal mention of Zubaty's Imipeach Bush impeach-ins: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003975

The Harvard Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1995/7/25/take-back-the-penis-rally-held/

book review: http://lionwiki.taoriver.net/cgi-bin/wiki/WhatMenKnowThatWomenDont

book review http://fathersforlife.org/sex_politics_10.htm

third party podcast directory: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Social-Sciences/Current-Events/The-Rude-Guy-Podcast/16854

Here is a posting of an article by Rich Zubaty on a feminist web site/blog. What do we do with it? How do we use it to flesh out his page. http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/41433/

Basically the same thing you would do if you were back in school writing a paper. Read the sources, find some relevant idea or piece of information, express that same point in your own words in the article, and cite your source. Click here for guidance on citing sources within the article. Click here for the Wikipedia manual of style, but don't think we actually expect you to read the whole thing. Details such as the article structure, tone, etc, can always be cleaned up. What's important is getting the most relevant verifiable facts into the article. By the way, Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles, but cannot be based on those other articles. I know it sounds weird, but we do not meet our own definition of a reliable source, and we don't want to duplicate content. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox. Is this the KIND of thing you mean????? 194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is not what is meant, those are ALL primary sources, please see Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, stating "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". These sources are not independent from the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. What is presented below based entirely on the writing of Mr. Zubaty as opposed to writings about him. You can use such primary sources to add content to an article, but the focus for purposes of this debate is establishing notability, which must be done with reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. This is basically a litany of his various memes, and is not really presented in a neutral tone. For example, instead of made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like its run by women something like Zubaty asserts in his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" that "we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it is run by women". I realize that many of you feel as though this is an established fact, but Wikipedia cannot present it as though it is one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Memes

In What Men Know That Women Don’t Rich Zubaty made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it's run by women, because the men who run it promulgate female values, female memes. [1] Our schools, churches, government, and businesses are all female friendly institutions, downright harmful to males. These sell-out men, garbed in female values, he called “manholes”. [2]And then he offered countervailing memes. In an era when men were demonized, women were glorified, and corporations were lionized he made the case that: Men are good. Women are not morally superior to men. [3]Corporations are bad. Men are not the oppressors of women. [4] Men are the protectors and providers for women. [5] If women have the right to equal access to jobs, then fathers have the right to equal treatment as parents. Women are not smarter than men. Women are more analytical than men. [6]Men are more skilled at relationships than women. [7]Men are more intuitive than women. [8]Women are more materialistic than men. Men are more spiritual than women. [9]Men have deeper feelings than women. Feminism was the biggest scab labor movement in history and the death knell of both the union movement and the grassroots sixties revolt. We live in a corporatocracy where corporations rule, and democracy has become emasculated. Feminists are corporate whores. [10]Feminism killed leftist politics in America by emphasizing social issues over economic issues.

194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 13
  2. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 26
  3. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
  4. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 20
  5. ^ Rich Zubaty (2010). What Men Know That Women Don't (Video). Maui: YouTube. Retrieved 2010-05-11.
  6. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 19
  7. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 19
  8. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
  9. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
  10. ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 15

More evidence on notability
A Tug-of-War Over Custody
Fathers Deprived of Their Rights In America's `Covert Matriarchy'
Click here for complete article
Author: Rich Zubaty
Date: October 29, 1994
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 18
Word Count: 785
Excerpt:
The Unlawful Visitation Interference Law was intended to diminish conflict between divorced parents who share custody of their children. It also frees parents from the expense of going back into divorce courts to straighten out visitation disputes. Some charge, however, that it is being misused to harass ex-spouses...

................


http://www.fact.on.ca/news/old/nw951225.htm


The following article was syndicated in over 50 major newspapers.


DOES GOVERNMENT DRIVE FATHERS AWAY?
By Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty, Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, December 25-31, 1995, page 30


85% of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers -- all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households. So, should we blame the mothers or the fathers? Perhaps, neither... --Cathbard (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rich_Zubaty&oldid=361626409"