Talk:Men's movement

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

SPLC material.[edit]

The commentary by the SPLC on the Men's Movement was previously removed suggesting that the article meant to refer to someone else. It should be noted that the SPLC is a highly regarded organization that is used by Scholars and Law enforcement for their information. They have a reputation for fact checking and the organization and its publications are held in the highest regard.

When the SPLC specifically says:-

"The men’s movement includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women."

It is not for others to say they actually meant someone else other than the "the men’s movement", we report what the sources say not what we think they meant to say.

CSDarrow (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed your reworking of this material because it was devoid of context, unclear in meaning, and opaque to the reader. My best guess is that you are trying to tar the SPLC with their own brush, showing the reader that one author published by the SPLC used insulting language to talk about the men's movement. If that is your goal then it violates WP:NPOV for non-neutral tone, and it violates WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR for the implication. That is, if you explicitly said "the SPLC has used insulting language" then this would be original research, not published in a reliable source. The implication cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you cannot use an SPLC source to comment upon the SPLC—someone in a reliable source must do that. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly it should be noted that much of this discussion was taken off the talk page and has occurred here, [1] and here [2]. Also Binkersnet you have argued fiercely on Men's rights over the reliability of the SPLC and also I should state that RSN has declared articles by the SPLC to be the voice of the SPLC not its author.

This is approaching bullying imo and I am making a report to Admin Incidents Noticeboard , including the fact my good faith has been questioned in the above post by Binkersnet. CSDarrow (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your good faith can be shown by telling us all what it is that you intended to communicate to the reader by posting an insulting quote from the SPLC, cited to the SPLC. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CSDarrow, this battle you've been waging with numerous editors needs to stop. And Binksternet, who is absolutely right on this issue, is not the first editor you've erroneously called a bully and threatened to report. You've also done it to a highly-regarded admin simply for doing his job and reverting your clearly inappropriate edit. Please stop your disruptive behavior before you end up getting blocked for the third time. (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the revert-happy protectors of this article and others would to well to discuss rather than revert. CSDarrow has a point, which is this: We are using a particular blog post to make a claim that the SLPC says X about group Y. Providing further context to that quote, from the same exact blog post, is informative to the reader, who can then make their own judgement. This is not synthesis, and it is being resisted because it paints SLPC in a bad light.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"revert-happy protectors"? Obi, please be civil. Do you also think that CSD has a point when he goes around calling editors bullies? Interestingly, you did not address the fact that the content is not even encylopedic, nor that it was pasted verbatin from the primary source with no context. And again, while I don't necessarily disagree with SPLC on their positions, where exactly is the editorial oversight that WP requires from sources, particularly regarding contentious content? -- (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's being uncivil to state that people are rather revert-happy around this and other MRM articles - it's just a fact. I don't think I've been successful in adding a single character to these articles, in spite of miles of text here... Again, in many other contexts, an editor adds material that's not perfect, but instead of reverting, other editors will improving the sourcing, or reword it, or provide commentary, or balance it, or find a better place for it, etc. CSDarrow is making a point with this edit, and it is I think actually a bit POINTY, but it's actually a good POINTY point, because SLPC is unambiguously accepted as a source of the highest quality, and this particular blog post IN PARTICULAR is used to source a claim that MRM is mysogynistic, so providing additional context through a direct quote of the blog post in question is useful to the reader. I do agree, we need to add *more*, such as a 3rd party analysis of this post and what it means - but just reverting is an aggressive action, and I could point you to umpteen essays on other forms of content management besides reverting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC article is about the men's rights movement: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men's Rights Movement. Nowhere does the SPLC mention any profeminist or mythopoetic men's groups or any other participants of the men's movement (e.g., Promise Keepers). It only discusses men's rights websites and activists. CSDarrow should be able to see that material about the men's rights movement belongs in the article men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what sources say, synthesis is not allowed. The SPLC is very clear here, it says unambiguously that "The Mens Movement includes...". We have a responsibility to record it as such and not as what we might find more emotionally satisfying. You can argue all day sonicyouth but the SPLC is used by Academics and law enforcement as a valued source of information, it has been considered a reliable source by you and others and discussed ad nauseum in RSN. It has been cited in scholarly journals, including the source discussed here. In short, Wikipedia views it is a source of the highest regard with a reputation for fact checking. If the SPLC did not mean the 'Men's Movement" they would used have another word, but they did not. CSDarrow (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The SPLC is very clear that the article is about the men's rights movement (article tile Leader's Suicide Brings Attention to Men's Rights Movement) and it is also quite clear that the SPLC never mentions any other strand of the men's movement except the men's rights strand. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a bit fuzzy. For example, "For people who associate the men’s and fathers’ rights movements with New Age drum circles in the woods, the ferocity of Ball’s rhetoric, the horror of his act, and, in particular, the widespread and blatantly misogynistic reaction to it may come as something of a revelation" - this links MRM to drum circles. This "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals. Some most certainly do have legitimate grievances, having endured prison, impoverishment or heartrending separations from genuinely loved children." makes FRM and MRM the same, even though we have different articles. So, I think it's fair to say, they are using a different typology than us, and it is a bit unclear. Finally, the websites he's talking about are those in the manosphere. Whether that manosphere extends beyond the boundaries of the MRM into the MM is not clear (none of us could draw such a line, either)- but how do we know that there's not some mytho-poetic website out there that likes bride shopping? etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop synthesizing Sonicyouth, the SPLC is unequivocal in its statement. CSDarrow (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What is it that they are unequivocally saying? Please explain. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let me give you an example. If you go to, that is sort of an aggregator of the so-called manosphere (I'd never heard this term) - but I do know this guy, who runs this site - - as I've read his blog before, he's a pickup artist, cheesy sort, but whatever. But he hosts posts like this [3], bashing the MRM. So SLPC, in the post above, starts with MRM, but confuses it with drum circles, says it's the same thing as father's rights, and then says more or less that the manosphere is the same as the MRM, but it's clearly not - whatever the manosphere is, it is clearly broader than the MRM, and is chock full of blogs dissing the MRM. So, I think if we just go by their words, and then by what they write, I think they meant what they said - it is not MRM, it is a broader men's movement that is represented in the manosphere, and within you have the pick up artists and the guys who just wanna be masculine and all the rest. MRM is a much smaller space than the manosphere, it would appear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am specifically looking for an explanation from CSDarrow rather than an analysis from anybody else. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry your honor, for speaking out of turn in your courtroom. But please don't badger the witness. The SLPC says "Men's movement", so that is unequivocal - so I don't know why you need to ask him. What you should address instead is the points I made - about how this post confuses different sectors and then brings in the "manosphere" which is way wider than MRM specifically, which makes me doubt many of the other claims that have been made around sources that "only" speak of MRM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
They are unequivocally saying, ie admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding, clearly and unambiguously, that "The Men's Movement includes....". This is grammatically and semantically very clear, ie unequivocal. Which bit of that don't you understand Binkersnet? CSDarrow (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing any cogent counter argument for not including this material. It is from an impeccable source and clearly a significant statement. Wikipedia records all significant view points. We record what sources say and do not attempt to synthesize or editorialize. If Binkersnet or Sonicyouth can find a reliable source saying the "The Men's Movement does not include....", then by all means add that as well to the section. Atm all I am seeing is pertinent and reliably sourced material being removed in violation of Wikipedia policy. CSDarrow (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What makes it significant? Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Why do you ask? CSDarrow (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Obtuseness is not going to make your point. If you have accepted that this text will be left out of the article, then let it go. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet's question is very fair. And CSD, your statement that "Wikipedia records all significant view points [sic]" is a vague misinterpretation. Actually, Wikipedia only includes content that is encyclopedic e.g. worthy of inclusion. And of course it must also be reliably sourced and neutral. There are many significant facts in the world that don't necessarily belong in a particular Wikipedia article. Btw, I'm not allowed to disagree with anything Obi says today because we're belatedly celebrating his 7th anniversary on Wikipedia, which was yesterday. Seven years without a block, no less, which is very impressive. :) -- (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
in that case, let me sum up: "I'm right!" :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I have to wait until tomorrow to say, "No you're not!" Haha. -- (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Lol, you accuse me of obtuseness. You are claiming this material is not significant enough for inclusion? I'd be interested in your rationale. But since you insist. Any characteristic of a group that is out of the ordinary for the general population and has been felt significant enough for a well known, reliable and respected source to comment on at some length; is by any meter significant, of interest to the reader and as such encyclopedic. Go and argue with the SPLC, not me. And IP please read the Wikipedia guidelines before you give your interpretations of them to me. CSDarrow (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Your source does not establish what is ordinary for the general population, and it does not say that the named groups are out of the ordinary, nor does it establish their significance relative to the general population. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Your obtuseness has risen to new heights and you have not even read my response properly. I am restoring the material, I see no counter to its inclusion. CSDarrow (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
...Which is a violation of 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is a violation of 1RR I will revert, however I see no notification of that fact. Please show me. 1RR is not mentioned here[4]CSDarrow (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to leave for the rest of the afternoon, if I am in violation of 1RR someone else can revert in my name. CSDarrow (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CSD, the condescending tone you use with some edtiors is disruptive and counter-productive. In terms of your very vague comment to me ("IP please read the Wikipedia guidelines before you give your interpretations of them to me"), you failed to give any indication about which part of my statement you feel is inaccurate. I said, "Your statement that 'Wikipedia records all significant view points [sic]' is a vague misinterpretation. Actually, Wikipedia only includes content that is encyclopedic e.g. worthy of inclusion. And of course it must also be reliably sourced and neutral. There are many significant facts in the world that don't necessarily belong in a particular Wikipedia article." So what precisely do you believe is incorrect in my comment? -- (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see that CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month. -- (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To get back to this discussion. I have yet to have a cogent counter argument to the inclusion the SPLC material. We can not simply omit material because it displeases us personally. CSDarrow (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
PearlSt82 you should have brought the discussion to this talk page before reverting. It has been discussed vigorously above and no counter arguments has been presented for its removal. A consensus is not a group people simply saying they don't like it. CSDarrow (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of counter arguments have been presented for its removal. As noted above, it is devoid of context, unclear in meaning, and opaque to the reader, and its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE for reasons already discussed in great depth. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh no they have not been answered. I have presented perfectly good responses to all questions including the one Binkersnet presented you have just repeated. Please do not revert again unless you answer the points I have made. This exact same source has been used else where on wikipedia in a similar manner. You can't just cherry pick statements from it whilst excluding those you don't care for. CSDarrow (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is very clearly about the MRM, not the broader Men's Movement. The title is Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement (emphasis mine). As such, its WP:UNDUE for inclusion in describing the broader Men's Movement (this article). The Men's rights movement has its own article and this criticism would be more appropriate there. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You are rehashing matters that have already been discussed, the paragraphs in question are unequivocally referring to the Men's Movement. Those are their own words. ie "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride....". I find your removal of properly sourced and significant commentary disruptive. I am reverting the material.CSDarrow (talk)
That is not correct, and not directed here. Where is the sources describing the significance? I have not seen them provided here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
CSDarrow's return of this material to the article was not supported by consensus. He had never answered my question from June which was about how "it was devoid of context, unclear in meaning, and opaque to the reader", so why would this material be pushed into the article? Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gay Liberation?[edit]

I was just thinking, could the gay liberation movement be considered a part of the broad spectrum of men's movements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)