From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

unbalance article[edit]

The opening quote by a sociologist is a no-true-Scottsman fallacy in disguise. Certainly one may reject feminism as a whole and not reject any of the mentioned tenets. Perhaps by require more points, refined perspectives, or other mode of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Your quote, which is intact right now, says "Men may focus...." and the article said "suggesting some antifeminist men, at the time of the study, may have opposed feminism..." We are clearly misquoting here, the ref doesn't mention antifeminist men which is why I removed an unsourced piece of research for the second time. The quote given doesn't back up the assertion, and we need a ref that does back it up or the statement and ref need to go as the ref doesn't appear to be on topic, perhaps it would be good for man. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In context, that paper is talking about what drives men towards antifeminism. The preceding sentence is Given that feminism among women is demonstrated to be related to equality and empowerment, as feminists claim, rather than power concerns, why do so many antifeminist men see feminists as motivated by power? and it leads into Not all men resist the changes advocated by feminists, but the evidence gathered here indicates that men who value their own power and perceive themselves as having power are the men who resist feminism. So when it discusses what "men may focus...", it is talking about the things that cause men to oppose feminism and become antifeminists. I honestly don't see how anyone who read the full paragraph from the source could miss the fact that it's talking about anti-feminist men specifically (especially given that it's in the context of a larger paper about the motives of anti-feminists, with the 'men' there contrasting with the anti-feminist women discussed in the next paragraph.) If you don't have access to the source (and you don't trust my interpretation or summaries), you can ask someone who does to review it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


@Ethanpet113: can you clarify what you're looking for here? WP:WEASEL states that claims need to be attributed (they are, via the references to the studies that have these findings). Weasel words would be if we said, like, "some people believe antifeminists hold X views". –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese:In order to establish the validity of a claim, it must be determined, who calls these people "antifeminists" is used hence "by whom".

The specific problem is:

  • Wikipedia only accepts uncited statements such as "x is used to", when the term is ubiquitous, e.g. "Bread is used to describe a tasty carbohydrate"
  • The listed people areWP:Living, so uncited statements about their political views may be seen as misrepresentation or worse slanderous.
  • You may cite either the media labeling them as such, or their own declarations, but otherwise this looks to be WP:Original Research or WP:SynthesisEthanpet113 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The ones you tagged were all cited though. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)