Talk:Men's rights movement

This article is an embarassment

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 whole article is structured as a long dialog trying to state and then refute all positions held by the various men's rights group.

I think this is massively POV. The structure presents to the casual reader the impression that all those positions have been soundly refuted and have no value. If the article about feminism was structured in similar fashion, we would have an outcry on Wikipedia.

My suggestion would be to trim the article substantially, concentrate the "refutations" in a few places, name them as criticisim or use other language to clearly indicat they are not to be taken at face value.

Maybe there are other, better ways. But as it is, this article is ridiculous. It could as well be named "Refutation of all Positions the Men's Rights Movement ever held". This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Wefa (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the general consensus when people read it. Arkon (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wefa, Arkon - I've actually strongly wanted to trim this article for quite some time. The unusual structure where seemingly every position of the MRM is listed and then a counter point is listed is not at all in line with Wikipedia's style. The laundry-list of issues (and refutations for most of them,) isn't something found on pretty much any other established article. I've tried to substantially revamp the article to be far more prose focused than it currently is at several points in the past, but have received a lot of pushback in trying to do so. If either of you are interested, I'd be happy to work on a new version of the article with you in a sandbox and then hopefully move it over once it achieved consensus. The current state of this article definitely isn't what anyone wants - it's just unfortunately what we've gotten from a lot of pushback to any major changes to the article in the past. Given the recent comparative abundance of relatively decent pop media sources dealing with the MRM, trying to restructure the article to be more well written may be something that may get less pushback than it has in previous attempts.

As one minor note: Wikipedia also strongly discourages separate criticism sections, and depending on the wording of the source, it's also inapproprate to imply that a criticism of something shouldn't be taken at less value than other sources talking about the same subject are (and may in fact be appropriate to phrase in a way that suggests it should be taken at *more* value if it's a stronger source.) Universally, well-written articles avoid the bullet style list this article currently uses, and also avoids separate criticism sections (criticism is instead integrated in to prose in the appropriate section that it naturally falls in to.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What about a separate criticism article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally an even more discouraged notion. We rarely have standalone criticism articles - we don't have ones about creationism, intelligent design, the Klan, or Obama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an abnormal amount of criticism in this article - it is heavily unbalanced, starting with the lede section. I think one large issue is that the article is focusing more on issues, and less on the history of the MRM... obviously there is less of that as compared to feminism, but perhaps we should be looking at the largest, most prominent organisations and individuals within the movement are, and systematically look at how they have shaped the movement through policy, theory and law changes etc. Zambelo; talk 02:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you believe the article has more criticism in it than is proportional to how the subject of the article is presented in reliable sources, I'd encourage you to start a separate section where you lay out an argument to that effect, which will include having to actually look at what the RS'es say. Although I agree with you that this article focuses more heavily on issues than it should reasonably, the MRM has received an awful lot of criticism, and that is (and will continue to be) reflected in the article, at least until the movement receives a hell of a lot more positive coverage than it has. As it stands, reliable sources about many of the prominent individuals within the movement don't even exist. The lede is far from perfect, but it draws on a high number of high quality reliable sources, and any perceived imbalance in the amount of criticism contained in it is more likely to reflect actual imbalance in how the movement is covered in reliable sources than a fault on the part of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be misrepresentation of the sources if we were to rewrite the article as an advertisement for what is a hugely controversial and academically contested movement --2.221.89.130 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You could argue that the feminist movement also received its share of criticism, and yet this is not found on that article to the extent it is found on this one. Reliable sources that define the movement independently from the criticism should be used, and establish a complete image of the movement. Zambelo; talk 12:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have problems with our article on feminism, you should probably take them to that article's talk page. If it doesn't follow our content policies, it should be fixed, but even if it doesn't follow our content policies (and I don't know if it does, I haven't looked at it in probably half a year,) that would not be a reason for this article to not follow our content policies. If you believe this article puts more weight on criticism than reliable sources do, I would encourage you to start another section to that effect laying out your argument in explicit detail. And yes, that will probably require a trip to the library if you don't already own the sources used in this article currently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are criticisms on many of the secular movements within Feminism, that is to say, articles like Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Cultural feminism, Marxist feminism, Womanism, Postmodern feminism, Sex-positive feminism, Transnational feminism etc, as well as the articles Antifeminism and Postfeminism that focus mostly on criticisms of the movement. The Feminist article also contains some criticism and discusses that there were vocal critics throughout the movement. We also have a category "Criticism of feminism" with a subcategory "Critics of feminism", all of which contains further criticism of the movement. Forget the fact that it is academically backed by the people who focus on gender issues at Universities, such as in Gender Studies and Sociology fields, it has to have exactly as much criticism as the Men's rights movement in article space or it is sexism against men. Either way, we could probably add even more criticism of Feminism, it would make sense considering the gender gap on Wikipedia that we are overtly critical of women's rights movements. Maybe the whole encyclopedia should be criticism of Feminism and notable women, that'll show 'em guys --2.221.89.130 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fyi IP, snark and sarcasm are not helpful. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, it's frustrating when people are intellectually dishonest and try to push article changes based on comparisons (i.e. that Feminism has less criticisms in article due to editor bias - which is strange as most reliable sources on the Men's rights movement are critical of its actions, not some, like in the case of Feminism). It's a lazy comparison, but should be base the Men's rights movement article structurally on the African-American Civil Rights Movement article? No, because they are completely different things, with different sources, different goals and achievements, and different histories, with the only point of reference being that they are civil rights movements. The argument that this should directly mirror the article on Feminism is weak and not useful in the construction of an encyclopedia. These are different topics and they are treated how sources treat them --2.221.89.130 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wefa, You are exactly correct this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia in general and in particular to its Five Pillars. Regardless of how and how long you argue, this page unfortunately will not change until there is a will and ability by all involved to abide by the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Probably not going to happen soon unfortunately. CSDarrow (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It follows how sources treat the movement. You can't give credence to ideas that don't have any backing. It's pretty evident how the website treats pseudoscience. What new sources do you have? Independent research shouldn't happen on website --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The page content is to be driven by the Five Pillars, period. It isn't happening. CSDarrow (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... what exactly is wrong with following neutral point of view and using reliable sources? The five pillars seems to be a good rule for articles like this. You could contribute to WikiMANNia if you want to edit from a men's rights perspective? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist sources are not "neutral." They should be identified in the article as feminist sources, per WP: Biased or opinionated sources:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

This point has been repeated in just about every page of the 24 archived Talk pages of this article... Memills (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminist scholars are scholars whether or not you like their analysis. Scholarly sources are what should be used the most to describe this topic. Your assertion that feminists are biased does not hold any water against scholars. Wikipedia does not have a guideline recommending we identify peer-reviewed scholarly works as non-neutral if they are feminists. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2014 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please can we change the second sentence in this article from:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"

To:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of the feminist opinion that the MRM perceive feminism as a threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"

Or:

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, due to their conflicting beliefs."

I have checked all the citations listed for this statement and they are almost all written by pro-feminists! One was written by a man that died a long time ago and therefore has an out dated opinion. Feminists have a clear agenda against the MRM and so it seems unfair to define the MRM based on feminist views.

I realise the first option might be seen as confrontational so maybe it would be better to use my second option. Ideally someone that is not pro-feminist needs to talk about the real reasons as to why they want to counter feminism but I can see that being messy! Until that happens the only fair thing is to remove this discrediting statement about the MRM's agenda.

Thanks.

CavemanDaniel (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: - the source you provide does not support either statement. The source just explains some MRM causes. Frankly neither of them are correct. As for your concern about sources, see the rest of the talk page about use of feminist sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

This is false all sited supported info was Feminist written work which gives a one sided argument or view the owner can't assume she or he knows about what as been written falsely as he/she is most likely from the opposing movement. I am in the Mens right movement I know how it is I need this to be taken down or changed with non bias eyes. Punkgok84 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No clear request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 11 August 2014

Under sub-section "Relation to feminism", the following sentence:

"They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women."

Should be changed to:

"They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are often victimized and disadvantaged relative to women." - I suggest either "often" or "sometimes", or a word that would carry a similar meaning.

This edit is not directly backed by sources. The main reason for this edit is to make clear that the Men's rights movement is not declaring that men are in every way victimized and disadvantaged compared to women, as could be implied from the tone in which it is currently written, and are only so in certain aspects, like the rest of the article then claims (under the "Issues" section), essentially clearing up possible ambiguity and improving clarity.

Furthermore, I also request an edit on the following sentence under "Issues", under the first paragraph:

"Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy."

Not only does this lack any sources, seeing as the Men's rights movement denies men having institutionalized privilege it would also be logical that it denies the existence of a societal system which would revolve around said privilege (the patriarchy), and as such it could not be held as the 'cause' for these issues which the Men's rights movement claims to exist, at least from the MRM's perspective.

That being said, removing "and patriarchy" from the sentence would make it more logical, at least it would be in line with MRM rhetoric, although the sentence is still not backed by any reliable sources but rather the editor's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okymyo (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Added missing request code. Kizniche (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I will do the first part. I think I have a source for that second one, including the "patriarchy". Give me a few minutes for it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a source to "Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and patriarchy." PDF of source can be found at this link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's proposed that a change should be made to the Domestic Violence section of this article, with an addition of newly-published research. This proposal is for the incorporation of two new sentences (with citations) between two currently-published sentences. The following sentences should be added:

"A 2014 study found women were more likely to be physically aggressive to their partners than men and women engaged in significantly higher levels of controlling behavior than men, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. Dr. Elizabeth Bates, who presented her research at the symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in Glasgow, reported that "women demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use physical aggression than men. This suggests that IPV may not be motivated by patriarchal values and needs to be studied within the context of other forms of aggression, which has potential implications for interventions.""

This proposed statements should immediately follow the sentence, found under the Domestic Violence topic, that at the time of this proposal, states:

"They state that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships and that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical."

The proposed addition describes the results of a scientific journal article and a quote of the significance of the study by the main author of the study, at the symposium on intimate partner violence (IPV) at the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology annual conference in 2014. This proposed addition supports the previous sentence (above) with peer-reviewed research and strengthens the prior claim(s) with statistically-significant data.

Additionally, the following sentence could be altered to increase flow of the sentence following the proposed addition, and improve the overall clarity of the paragraph, from:

"They frequently cite family conflict research by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles as evidence of sex-symmetry,"

to:

"Further evidence of sex-symmetry is cited by family conflict research conducted by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles." Kizniche (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I won't close this since I was the one to revert the edit, but I reverted this edit before because (1) it's primary research and (2) the second source is a conference paper and thus not stringently peer reviewed. Furthermore, the sentence stating "They state that women are as aggressive..." is cited by books that also say there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. This article is about the MRM, not about supporting their claims with individual pieces of research (WP:COATRACK). I would object to the conflict tactics scale edits because Straus does not argue sex symmetry the way MRAs do. See Kimmel's paper on sex symmetry for more on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: You bring up valid points. However, can you elaborate on your objection to the use of primary research? Kizniche (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a specific policy against primary sources as part of its general policy against original research - part of which is:-

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material"

Arjayay (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 13 August

The second link in this sentence in the introduction:

The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by certain scholars, the Southern Poverty Law Center and commentators, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

(Citation 5)

Is a dead link.

Please amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingo12 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Link is fixed, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's rather embarrassing for Wikipedia

That in the time I've been gone from this article significant changes have been made with little to no discussion here that have gone against consensus as it has been established time and time again, and that despite plenty of probation violations being made, no action has been taken against anyone. If you compare the last version I edited (which mostly reflected consensus as reached through repeated discussion) and the current version, the changes I am referring to should be obvious. Oh well. I'll check back again in another three months, mostly to see how bad it's gotten, with an inkling of hope that someone has started actually enforcing the probation. Patrolling admins: I imagine this section will irritate you a bit so feel free to hat it, etc. I don't intend to return to this article for multiple months, and am in a place for at least a week or two longer where I can barely edit anything anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out specific issues? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I've gone through every edit made to this article since Kevin Gorman last modified it. Most edits have been innocuous fussing over tags and wording. The only significant content change that was not immediately reverted was the addition of a paragraph stating that the MRM has several prominent female advocates, and this seems both relevant and well sourced. I'm not sure what the problem is. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"the changes I am referring to should be obvious" No, they aren't. Memills (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. I didn't see any major changes either, except, as mentioned above, the list of pro-MRM women, which seems uncontroversial. Kevin, you might have to be more specific. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How to get changes:

1. make change

either

• change is kept
• change is reverted

1. if the change is reverted, start a discussion on the talk page.
2. (optional) start an RFC
3. request close of the discussion

if the change is good, it will be done, if it isn't, it won't. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism tagging

Could someone give me a rundown on why WP Feminism tagged this article as high importance? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it is an topic discussed and studied by feminist scholars? Not sure about "high", but definitely not low. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The criminalization of marital rape Section

I propose these words be removed from the Criminalization of Martial Rape section:-

"Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom"

The source supporting this is a speech made in 1993 by a lone, [Redacted per WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK] who has not been active in over a decade. The reference[1] is from an unreviewed book, from 2000, by a highly partisan author who provides no sources to support his assertion. The statement is in the present tense and also interpreting a primary source. I know of no other UK MRA, either past or present, who has holds this position. There are obvious wp:undue, wp:rs and other issues. CSDarrow (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Make the edit and follow Wikipedia:BRD. The source in question in my opinion needs to be backed up by another source. The Author is a senior lecturer and the source in question is a tertiary source. Per WP:WPNOTRS, introductory textbooks are tertiary sources, and the source in question explicitly states that it is an introductory textbook in the title. I agree with removal unless it is backed up with another source. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest attribution to the senior lecturer and person who may have stated the statement that is being debated, but I don't like putting words in people's mouthes and this could also be a WP:BLP violation, as this can be considered polemic by certain people and this person may not necessarily believe the things he is being spoken of saying. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Some sources: 1 2 3 4 5, I support striking UK and have the sentence read "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists". Also I disagree that the Dunphy source is not RS. It is published by the Edinburgh University Press and WP:WPNOTRS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, introductory textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources are helpful for overviews or summaries, and in evaluating due weight, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.", and furthermore WP:TERTIARY says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. ". There is nothing in the policy prohibiting tertiary sources being used. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your source #4 cites this very WP article as evidence for that particular claim, so I don't think that one is suitable. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see what it linked to, my apologies. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are absurd. Please find me a prominent MRA who has held this view and repeated it. These are the requirements of Undue Weight. Wikipedia requires its information, in this case words written/spoken by others, to be verifiable. Also conflating India with the West can be problematic. Your suggested edit is painting the whole Men Rights Movement as being in support of marital rape. Agreeing with Marital Rape as a concept is a very controversial opinion to hold. You'd expect links to those expressing such a view easily found and a torrent of criticism from others. I can find neither, and apparently neither can you.CSDarrow (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Prominent MRAs" are typically in the form of non-RS blogs like AVFM, where that sentiment is absolutely expressed. Just google "marital rape mra" and tons of them come up. This is not what WP:UNDUE means, and most of the sources listed are academic books that describe the behavior of the movement. Sources do not need to be from the movement itself. Please be WP:NICE. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your google search does not result in what you have suggested.18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 5. Another AVFM piece is here at avfm/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/to-rape-or-not-to-rape/ - Again, not suggesting these should be used as RS, but most of the 'primary' source material for MRA stuff is non-RS blogs. As you've requested, they are links to a view easily found along with the criticism. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You link to Futrelle who is as about unreliable as it gets on these matters, and then linked to a brace of the oddest obscure nutcases on this planet. I can find you links from feminist sites that wish to reduce the male population to 10% for Gods sake, I would not claim that is representative of feminism. Please use commonsense in your replies. In short a case that MRA's support marital rape can not be made without reference to the present source, which has no supporting citations and is in a book for there is no credible evidence of fine detailed fact checking. The same and more applies to the additional sources you provided.CSDarrow (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

University Presses are not automatically reliable sources. CSDarrow (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And what makes this one unreliable according to what policy? As already noted, this professor is a senior lecturer and this university is not a fringe educational institution. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

None of those points automatically assure reliability. Read reliable sources CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, from WP:RS: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses., and Secondary sources, such as Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.. The only other substantial portions of policy dealing with books have been pasted above (the stuff dealing with tertiary sources), and statements saying to not use a self-published book, which this is clearly not. In my reading of the policy it absolutely passes WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Read your first statement very carefully. In particular "vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable" has to be the case for the second clause to be applicable. University presses publish a range of publications from the fully peer reviewed to the mere checking of spelling and grammar. This type of publication is not rigorously peer reviewed, else it would have been stated somewhere, it is not. CSDarrow (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Free Northerner and Vox Day come to mind for explicitly saying this, I recall seeing articles on A Voice for Men and the Spearhead against the concept of marital rape also. Warren Farrell himself once said "Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen". All MRAs obviously don't believe this but many do --94.175.85.144 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearsay is not sufficient. Find sources of sufficient reliability for your statements. Then demonstrate the point they support is of sufficient weight to merit inclusion in this page. CSDarrow (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, the fact that lots of notable MRAs have written against the criminalisation of marital rape doesn't mean that the ones in the UK necessarily do, but I don't see what's wrong with the source in question? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless a credible case, of sufficient weight, can be made that the MRM in the UK supports Martial Rape, then I will take 123chess456's advice and follow Wikipedia:BRD, thus removing the words in the entry. CSDarrow (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82 you have reverted an edit that patently violates WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Explain to me why a comment by a lone, no longer active, MRA in the 1990's satisfies WP:UNDUE. CSDarrow (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made my points and you've made yours, its time for others to weigh in. I don't see the point in continuously going around in circles. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82 Then those who further discuss this I hope will take into account the following from WP:UNDUE. Which I assume you have read and as you can imagine I am left puzzled as to the stance you have taken. To quote:-

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

For you to revert your edit would be an honorable thing to do.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the source itself, the MRM was in an "embryonic" state at the time. I think at the very least that means that it wasn't very coherent. Kind of like feminism in the 20s,there were bra burnings, campaigns for separatist lesbian society, and killing of all men. Yet a lot of modern people who consider themselves feminists don't agree with those positions, and those that do are now referred to as "radical feminists". Likewise, if you go on websites in the most radical of the manosphere, like Reddit's [reddit.com/r/TheRedPill "The Red Pill"], you can see a large difference even there. A lot of their contributors hate" men's rights". On the other hand, to use AVfM, that's more of the center of the MRM. On return of kings the writer states "the very values that are taught here and on many other manosphere sites that inexplicably have been attacked, disparaged, and even sought for eradication by the American media and blogosphere, men’s rights activists (my emphasis, not the article's) , “PUA haters”, and progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center". In my opinion, Roger Whitcomb could, if he existed today, be placed in the more anti men's rights movement area of the men's movement. I suggest attributing him to "Roger Whitcomb, a member of the MRM...". Also, sorry for the wall of text, but the source implies that Whitcomb was against change, while a wide portion of the MRM actually wants to remove gender roles, create single and stay at home dads, have men get alimony and child support, which never happened throughout history.

TL;DR Roger Whitcomb was a radical, comparable to what a radical feminist is to the feminist movement. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, Whitcomb might be placed somewhere rather interesting. But please let us not exchange our opinions here. Instead let's stick to reliable, secondary sources. Dunphy is one of them. Let me remind you that this isn't the place to rewrite history and spread myths about the 1920s that, in your view, were characterized by bra burnings (that didn't happen in the 60s, let alone 20s) and "campaigns for separatist lesbian society, and killing of all men". But you are free to go the radical feminism talk page and share your theories about bra burnings, lesbian societies and plans to kill the male species there. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm copy to copy and paste what was said to me earlier in the post for making a statement like this: "Hearsay is not sufficient. Find sources of sufficient reliability for your statements. Then demonstrate the point they support is of sufficient weight to merit inclusion in this page." It's okay that you think he is a "radical" but the reference says otherwise. There are plenty of MRAs that are against spousal rape legislation, I gave some examples earlier in the page. This is against the point though, the arguments by 123chess456 and CSDarrow are WP:OR and do not warrant the removal of the text --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As previously uninvolved in this content dispute, I would just like to state that WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Tutelary (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm repeating exactly what he said earlier in the page. Am I allowed to make original research as well now or just the guy who supports your POV? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a hearty accusation and I beseech that you stop that. You are allowed to engage in WP:NOR to do a certain amount of things, like check sources, check books, weigh certain options in content, but if you're trying to insert original research into the article, that's not allowed. It's allowed because we can't obviously cite every single sentence when we're arguing on the talk page whether we're supposed to do X, Y, or Z. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. If editors want to voice their opinion on Roger Whitcomb, marital rape, radical feminism or the alleged bra burnings and planned men killings of the 1920s, they should do it elsewhere. What are editors supposed to do with statements like "In my opinion, Roger Whitcomb could, if he existed today..."? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are using this website for, after your recent edits this is WP:SPADE. So you accept that I can discuss other men's rights websites and speakers that are against spousal rape legislation? Even Warren Farrell is and he's the closest the movement has to an academic --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to improve Wikipedia. Now, I feel that CSNarrow is in the right here, because it's an older source and may not properly reflect what the MRM actually believes in today. I would argue this way for any other mentions as well. Does Warren Farrell properly sympathize and participate with MRM? Yes. Is he their spokesperson? I don't think so. So we'd need a collective, more update to date source to state that they do not support marital rape laws. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that we should change it to say that it used to be against marital rape laws? If the problem is that it is an older viewpoint of theirs then we could just move it into their history? It's safe to say that, at some point, members of the UK men's rights movement were staunchly against marital rape laws, as well as other members of the group. I don't think it would be fair to remove it just because some men's rights editors here don't support it. We already have a good source to support the fact that the UK men's rights movement supported it at some point. I'm hoping that somebody writes something on them soon, it's gathering support but you don't see much about it in print, other than in news editorials that is --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How about we say "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape have been opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom, the United States and India"? If we change the "are opposed" to "have been opposed" then it gets rid of the problem of it not necessarily standing up to what the current UK movement endorses --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• The source is obviously reliable (published by Edinburgh University Press, cited multiple times, written by an academic) and there is no reason to remove it. If we start removing sources, then we'll start with references like Kumar's conference paper. Even men's rights writers like Cathy Young state that men's rights activists oppose marital rape legislation, quote "Much of his support has come from men's rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Edinburgh University Press are very notable. Without looking very hard I found that they publish over 35 academic journals including ones in Law, Philosophy, Literary Studies and Politics, and are a part of University Publishing Online, an online platform for Cambridge University Press. It actually seems to be one of the better references and shouldn't be removed because some editors WP:DONTLIKEIT --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

University presses have many types of publications, from the heavily peer reviewed to the those, eg books, receiving merely the checking of spelling and grammar. A publication does not automatically inherit the reputation of the presses other publications, any publications reputation is stand alone. A peer reviewed publication will however inherit the presses reputation for peer reviewing, but this should also be verifiable through other means. No one is disputing that Whitcomb said these words in 1993. The argument is are they are sufficient to support the statement:- "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom". My position is they aren't, a position I feel is close to self evidently true. CSDarrow (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a reputable source and approaches the topic from a relatively neutral stance. It says that men's rights activists did say that, not all men's rights activists honestly, but that it is a considerable viewpoint held by many members of the movement. Furthermore, it does show that it's from a reliable publisher, which adds to the credibility of the writer and the research that went into it --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Read my comment to Sonicyouth86 below. CSDarrow (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86 This is about the UK and not the USA or elsewhere. I do not think anyone is disputing Whitcomb said words to this effect in 1993. The question is do his words constitute sufficent evidence to support the notion:- "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom".

Apart from the fact that Whitcomb was an outlier, no longer active in the MRM and these words are from 1993; Jimbo Wales is very clear about attributing opinions to groups. To quote Jimbo Wales from WP:UNDUE

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The Whitcomb reference in clearly inadequate to support the notion that the MRM in the UK supports the idea of Marital Rape. If the MRM in the UK supports this then there should be other evidence, and in fact is a requirement of Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your biggest problem is that the wording suggests that all MRM supporters are against the criminalization of spousal rape. How about we change the "are opposed" to "have been opposed" or something similar to this. It's clearly a good source to say that UK members have in the past, ones who were notable enough to be covered on a book on sociology in general, and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to represent the up-to-date goings on of the movement, just the things that the subject is notable for --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that it is also a dubious claim, only supported by one single reference. You could attribute it to the author, but the work may fail reliability in any case. Zambelo; talk 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You think that it is dubious and you are entitled to your opinion. The secondary and primary sources that were presented here and elsewhere are very clear. Dunphys introductory book that was published by Edinburgh University Press does absolutely not fail variability. I suggest you read WP:V first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The assertion carries undue weight. A single source cannot make such a sweeping claim - mainly because there are plenty of other authors who would dispute it. See WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. " and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". The views of a single author is a minority opinion, and should be treated as such. Zambelo; talk 23:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are the authors and where are the reliable secondary sources that dispute it? The view that men's rights activists oppose the criminalization of marital rape is supported by all reliable secondary sources that have anything to say on that issue. Plenty of primary sources – from A Voice for Men opinion pieces to MRM Reddit threads – were presented here. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a case of activist editors deciding that they know more about a topic than the academics who write the sources. We aren't here to perform WP:OR, there are other wikis for that. The article has a reliably sourced section that describes the attitudes of certain people within the men's rights movement. I suggest that we reword it to make it evident that it is only certain members of the UK movement that are against it. It should satisfy everybody here as it makes it completely WP:DUE and means we don't have to remove reliably sourced content --94.175.85.144 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If a group holds a view it is a requirement to be able to find proponents of that view, as stated by Jimbo Wales. If an extremely small minority holds that view it then has no place in Wikipedia. You should not refer to editors as activist editors.CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No Sonicyouth86 that is not the way it works. Sources attributing a view to a group must satisfy the conditions set down by Jumbo Wales, please read them again. It should be possible to find MRAs in the UK who have firmly expressed that view. Nobody as yet has done so, apart from finding an inactive MRA from 1993. That is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. I find it astonishing that you would propose Reddit threads as sufficient. AvFM is from the USA not the UK, and the article is inadequate when properly scrutinized. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which sources support it? If there are more sources, then by all means, add them to the article. It isn't OR to notice that a single source cannot apply to such a broad statement about an entire movement comprised of diverse components. There is also no attribution to be seen. Also, where in Dunphy's book does he say that the MRM in the UK is opposed to the criminalisation of marital rape? Could you provide the page number and quote for verification? Zambelo; talk 00:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that the wording be changed to show that it's only some of the UK movement that are against it, although I know that other MRAs, including Farrell, support this view. The page number and quotation is listed in the references. You cannot reference from a book on Wikipedia without providing the page number. I think it's a good source and has due weight to be included in the article, it just takes a little rewording --94.175.85.144 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide the citation of where on p142 it is mentioned? Zambelo; talk 01:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

94.175.85.144, your suggested rewording does not result in Wikipedia's and in fact Jimbo Wales conditions being satisfied, see WP:UNDUE. To suggest Warren Farrell, who is from the USA, holds that view is beneath contempt. Remember this is about the UK. Warren Farrell is one of the most moderate and respected voices in the gender issues debate, I am not aware he identifies as an MRA. CSDarrow (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read his books? Here is a direct quotation: "Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen". I don't know if I'd say he's one of the most moderate or respected voices, for one thing he's supported the hate site A Voice for Men --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am deleting the reference to the UK MRM and Marital Rape for a second time. Jimbo Wales is very clear on the criteria for attributing a view to group, see WP:UNDUE. These criteria are not even being remotely satisfied by the source(s) provided atm. I find it astonishing that anyone, let alone an experienced editor, would argue they are. If my edit is reverted then we have reached an impasse and outside help will be needed. CSDarrow (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article has been locked for one week due to the edit warring. You can spend that time trying to obtain a consensus for resolving the dispute. If after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted by a editor who has played no part in the discussion here, not even to explain their reversion. The explanation in the edit note suggests the editor in question is not even unaware of the discussion here. I find this troubling. I shall make arrangements for suitable outside help. CSDarrow (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been quasi following the discussion here but my revert was more on procedural grounds. The content had been there for months. There's a content dispute and BRD needs to be followed and not a slow edit war. The source appears RS at first glance as it's academic (and any discussion about it's use as a source needs to go to RSN). Frankly I don't care one way or the other, but the edit war needed to stop and the page is currently in its pre-edit war state thanks to Bbb23. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You have contributed nothing to this lengthy discussion yet felt fit to revert an edit. You did not even have the courtesy to explain here the rational behind your edit. For someone who has been following the discussion your edit note is puzzling, perhaps you could elaborate? Your post justification is thin at best and pays little attention to the points raised, especially those referring to the principles set down by Jimbo Wales. I think we have the right to expect better of you.CSDarrow (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave a very clear reason in my edit summary. Also WP:AAJ. There are a number of issues being discussed here but no consensus. The remove/add/remove needed to stop. If y'all can't agree, start an RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The "WP:AAJ" you speak of is part of WP:UNDUE and you have actually contributed to the 'remove/add/remove' you have objected to. CSDarrow (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is unreasonable, Bbb23. None of the terms of probation were breached, as far as I can tell, and the 1R rule wasn't either. What if consensus cannot be reached, should content that isn't supported by sources remain in the article indefinitely? Zambelo; talk 05:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 is "tired and going off-wiki", so I guess it's time to discuss and gain consensus. Could someone provide the citation of where on p142 of the source it is mentioned that the MRM is opposed to the criminalisation of marital rape in the UK? Zambelo; talk 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop edit waring and removing sourced content. Here is the page, you can read the section (and much of the book if you feel like actually doing some research) here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NVPQkt0bVpAC&pg=PA142&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated [i.e. this view is seen by the researcher as reflective of the movements views at the time] by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream') and for the Child Support Act"

Feel free to read more of the chapter, it makes it clear that his voice was very close to how the movement saw things at the time. It's a decent, well-referenced source from a reputable publisher. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason to remove --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you cite exactly where the author mentions 'marital rape'? Zambelo; talk 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Completely agreed, and furthermore the book was written by a scholar of gender studies published by a major university press, which passes WP:RS with flying colors. I also agree that any judgments to the contrary should be coming from RSN, as no compelling reasons for its removal have been listed here. PearlSt82 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think some of the editors here need to take a step back and consider how the academic system works. These books are edited by reputable publishers and are heavily footnoted. I have not seen a good argument for its removal. I know that some of the MRA editors here maybe don't share the view concerning marital rape but that doesn't mean it is up to you to remove it. We are not academics and it is not our place to restructure the article around our own personal views on the topic. I have seen no evidence that it is a poor source and do not support attempts to censor the movements history --94.175.85.144 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Break

I posted on NPOVN[2] with 3 sources other than Dunphy that describe the UKMM - United Kingdom Men's Movement - as advocating for the abolition of marital rape and rape in the context of family law and domestic violence (The UKMM is the organization whitcomb is from). The sources are The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance (page 60) and Feminist Perspectives on Family Law & Violence, Gender and Justice by Wykes & Wels. I might add also that the UKMM's own website which has moved to "the cheltnam group" talks alot about "False rape allegations in the matrimonial area" and lists false rape as one of its own campaigns.
That said there is only evidence here of the UKMM campaigning like this. It would be my suggestion that the article text be changed to attribute the view of the UK group to the UKMM specifically because that's what the sources say so that it doesn't look like all or many UK men's rights groups hold this view--Cailil ^talk 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you posted links to the sources you are proposing. UKMM from I can determine is an organization of unknown numbers, possible even one, that is really of unknown significance. I personally have never come across any activity by them in many, many years. The only thing I really know about them is Whitcomb. Their web page is very amateurish and it has no reference to supporting Marital Rape or any specifically contemporary issues. From their page stats they have received between 0 and 3 visits per day in the last week [3]. Alexa stats here [4], give an average of 1.3 visits per day over the last year; many of which may have come from its mention in the literature. Although their is one link with reference to 2004 their last activity seem to have been in the late 1990's, which even then does not seem to be extensive. Google search gives very few references to them. I am left with the impression that possibly this is at best an insignificant group or possibly even defunct. Frankly I don't know. We also have to consider that WP:UNDUE states that, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia.." . CSDarrow (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They're books CSDarrow they may not all be on the internet - using Google alone is not the best way to do the highest quality research. However now that 4 books all of academic standard say the same thing your argument about minorities etc is void. So is your Alexa point - it's their website, its their campaign and it's being accurately described - how many hits they get is neither here nor there. I'm not saying that the text in article should be left unchanged, as I said at NPOVN the UK text should be made past tense and relate to the UKMM specifically. The fact is multiple sources say that the United Kingdom Men's Movement campaigned against marital rape and rape laws relating to domestic violence in Britain, the group also says it did itself--Cailil ^talk 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I find your argument as a whole unconvincing. I am also concerned about this groups name, it could mislead readers into a false impression about Men's Rights activists in the UK in general. The inclusion of you proposed entry requires a lot more thought. I will let others weigh in before further responding. CSDarrow (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly CSDarrow it doesn't matter whether you personally find the group's name misleading or my "argument" unconvincing (which is not an argument it's simply a list of sources that contradict you're your question above WRT WP:UNDUE). The material is there. It's reliably sourced (multiple times). It corroborates the point, and better still it refines the info.

Again, multiple reliable sources say: the Men's rights group called the United Kingdom Men's Movement (UKMM) campaigned against marital rape laws, and rape laws relating to domestic violence, in Britain. The group itself says this. Filibustering wont change it and will be seen as tendentious - the point regarding this material was asked and is now answered. End of story-Cailil ^talk 12:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, if you have a suggested rewording then we need to see the precise wording of both the proposed new text and the supporting citations. This will speed things up and we can then discuss it. There may concerns over WP:RS and WP:UNDUE here. CSDarrow(talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

First off I've given you two suggestions. 1) Just use the past tense with regard to the UK and cite the sources. Or 2) do this and attribute the activism to the UKMM. It really is that simple. There are no WP:UNDUE or WP:RS issues these sources end that discussion. Persisting with questioning the reliability of clearly reliable sources reflects very poorly on those doing it.

Secondly this doesn't require any one person's approval no-one WP:OWNs this article. When the protection ends the sources should just be cited and everyone needs to move on--Cailil ^talk 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When you are ready to suggest a change of the text, I am sure before editing you will bring it here for discussion as is common practice. The whole discussion seems to be on track.

In the meantime it would seem the inclusion of the UK in the text as is is in error. A point concurred with by the outside commentators in NPOVN to date. I would ask that you join me in requesting Bbb23 to remove the reference to the UK in that section. It would seem we are misinforming the readers of Wikipedia knowingly at the moment atm. CSDarrow (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you could come to that conclusion regarding removal. All I'm suggesting is we add these sources to reference the UK piece. Nothing more. And, no CLEARLY the page is correct the UKMM according both to itself and multiple reliable sources DID in fact campaign against marital rape. Please stop going round in circles. This matter is resolved, it's time to move on--Cailil ^talk 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When you are prepared to explicitly present your proposed text and sources in a clear, detailed and orderly manner then we can all proceed. This is a significant claim to make about any group and care should be taken. I shall make the request to Bbb23 myself. CSDarrow (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement as a singular entity

The Men's rights movement is comprised of many disparate groups with more or less aligned views, beliefs and objectives. Part of the issue with this article is that the MRM is being referred to as a singular organism, when in reality is is comprised of individuals and organizations from different countries. Claiming therefore that "the MRM has been referred to as ...." is incorrect if the source only makes the claim about a certain part of the movement or of an individual within the movement.

How could we address this? We could identify the principal actors in the movement and create subsections - or better still, move the content to the individual's article (if it exists).

Zambelo; talk 04:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to create subsections. Feminism is much the same and there are lots of disparate articles for the movement (i.e. Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Womanism etc). The general Feminism article summarises the views that researchers and sociologists consider to cover most of its groups views and explains the differences between them. We should still include all well-referenced information concerning the actions of the men's rights movement, that is what an encyclopedia is for and movements within the name are still reflective of it, but they could be contextualised by group and put into a timeline --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)