Talk:Men's rights movement

Creation of 'Reaction' section

Why? because attacks are not specified in any way and in it's current from, it only appears as a thinly veiled attack on the movement.NFLjunkie (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• We generally try to stick to what reliable sources say, and the sentence people have been deleting or moving around is quite well sourced - I own physical copies of most of the books it references, and have access to the online sources as well. Most of them are high quality sources represented accurately, are significant enough to be included in the lede, and summarize things dealt with elsewhere in the article. Moreover, it's generally frowned upon to have a separate criticism section, and the way you named the section wasn't in line with our normal naming conventions - it looked like an attempt to bury information that is supported by dozens of reliable sources in a later part of the article. If you think the lede looks like a thinly veiled attack on the MRM, that would be the fault of the reliable sources quoted. We go off what RS'es say, and if they're negative about the movement then there's nothing wrong with the lede of the article painting the movement negatively. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Do we really rely on reliable sources Kevin. Honestly, do we really? Seriously do we?

• Separate criticism sections are frowned on, they are are they? Who are those who are allowed to frown on them. How can I join such a group. Criticism of powerful groups is neatly tucked away into a tidy little section, generally with counter argument, eg feminism. On this page you can't read more than a few sentences without reading criticism.

• For God's sake Kevin just look at this page, do you have any conscience at all?

Now watch me get banned for 6 months for speaking out of turn, which is what my next one will be,.

CSDarrow (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, you could continue with the personal attacks that will get you blocked, or you could actually provide the reliable sources that have repeatedly been requested. Up to you really. User:Bbb23, are you still the person who normally patrols probation vios here? If so, this may be a section to watch. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Kevin, this template should ping you. The template you used for me does not. I was alerted to this discussion in another way. CSDarrow, despite your cynical forecast, I don't intend to ban you at this point. I'd be careful, though. Protracted discussions mentioning effectively the same points you've brought up before and which have been repeatedly rejected by consensus are disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not start the discussion, I am just responding to points made by others who are in turn responding to me. CSDarrow (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Others plural? I see one other editor who started this discussion, at least in this section. NFLJunkie is a fairly new editor, who, despite very few edits, managed to get themselves blocked for violating WP:1RR on the article. You haven't edited an article at Wikipedia since December 19, 2013. Mostly, I wonder if the only reason you're here is to push your agenda. It certainly doesn't strike me that you're here to improve anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you responded I am sure you would not mind if I did the same. I have not edited since December because you banned me for 3 months, remember? Your response seems very much at odds with Goodfaith and the self declared 3rd and 4th usersboxes on you user page. The only agenda I have is the Five Pillars, I have never once expressed an opinion about Men Rights on Wikipedia.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I have only a little time and I'm wrung out from having had food poisoning last night. You're right. You were blocked for three months. I was careless and went by your nomenclature (you used the word "banned", and I mistakenly thought I had topic-banned you instead of blocking you). I should have checked the block log before commenting. My fault. Notwithstanding the confusion, I think you need to step back and look at the big picture. Your saying that you never expressed an opinion about men's rights here is not credible. Maybe you're playing lawyer and using the phrase "expressed an opinion" in an unusually narrow manner, but the major thrust of your edits stems from your opinions about the MRM. Even since you resumed editing after the block expired, the only edits you've made have been to this talk page and one edit to Talk:Sexism. Your edits since you started editing here, with limited exceptions, have been to this article, Misandry, and Male privilege, particularly starting in 2013. Of your total edits (1,279), only 80 have been to articles. The overwhelming majority have been to talk pages, which is where one usually expresses one's views. Finally, you have been blocked four times by three different administrators (I'm the only one who has blocked you twice), and they all involve MRM.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are drawing inferences and imputing opinions that you have neither the right nor evidence to do so; but even further you are evaluating the worth of my comments based on these apparent opinions. I was under the impression the worth of arguments were independent of the speaker, if Wikipedia is operating otherwise then the problems run deeper than I had suspected. Using your 'logic' one could only assume you are against Men's Rights. The fact that the most egregious violations of the Five Pillars might be occurring in the areas I have commented on seems outside your realm of thinking. Your Userboxes and even Barnstars suggest you value neutrality, I find this puzzling at best. Yes I have been blocked a number of times, most frequently by you; which I guessing you will do again shortly. You have a Userbox about people being wrong I believe.

There needs to be a discussion, which my bet will not happen, about the way this page evaluates the reliability of its sources. This a serious question yet those broaching it commonly suffer ad hominems, strawmen and blocks. I find this problematic.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, for some reason I thought the mere link of a username was enough to generate a ping. Thanks for the info. Even if CSDarrow's behavior doesn't progress to offensive violations of the terms of probation, I think it's getting pretty obvious that he's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and thus doesnt belong here. I'm hoping the next day or two will prove me wrong about that, as I like having as many Wikipedians around as we can. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Those are serious points and questions, yet you respond like that? If Wikipedia is to be honest and progress as its founders envisioned then reflection of that nature is necessary. Veiled threats and strawmen is not a part of the Wikipedia I envision or I am sure Jimbo Wales. CSDarrow (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me put my serious face on: could you please provide some reliable sources that provide viewpoints significantly contrary to how this article currently reads? I know I can't, and I've tried. If you can provide those reliable sources, I'd love to see them incorporated in to the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No Kevin, you have ignored my inconvenient questions. Are the sources here reliable, are they used judiciously? Why are "separate criticism frowned on" here but not elsewhere? Their use can significantly affect the tone of the article. Even the most casual objective reader can see this article it is neither balanced nor accurate. CSDarrow (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding separate 'criticism' sections, see Wikipedia:Criticism: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 'rules'. You have not addressed the point I have raised. CSDarrow (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Andy lays out pretty well why separate criticism sections are frowned upon, and that's a policy that evolved over years that I had nothing to do with. Similarly, I didn't write our policy on reliable sources. If you have specific concerns that an included source might not meet WP:RS, then voice them, and we can talk about it. If you have reliable sources that disagree with what pretty much every reliable source (reliable by Wikipedia's definition here) says, then post them, and we can include them in the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Pretty much the reply I expected, you have avoided my point(s) by merely quoting process. What we have is the result of process, the application of the process is the problem.CSDarrow (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You asked why separate criticism sections were frowned upon. I provided a link to an explanation for why separate criticism sections are frowned upon. How exactly does that constitute avoiding answering your question? And yes, article creation involves 'process' - Wikipedia is not an anarchy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am left with the impression you have no idea what I am talking about. No Wikipedia is not an Anarchy, it is something else. I'll let you guess. The responses I am receiving sound like statements from a government ministry/department,CSDarrow (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you approach Wikipedia as if there's a conspiracy to suppress your viewpoint... it'll probably feel an awful lot like there's a conspiracy to suppress your viewpoint. If you have specific complaints about the text of the article, please raise them - otherwise this section is more or less a waste of time for all involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your response is a strawman. I think discussions about broader policy issues that ultimately affect individual edits are certainly not a waste of time. By concentrating on individual issues you often can't see the wood for the trees. My points are very clear and pertinent, to be precise:-

• Is there inconsistency in the application of Criticism Sections that might be damaging to Wikipedia?
• Is there incorrect application of Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View on this page?

These are important questions that I think need addressing. Judging by some of the comments others seem to feel the same, though strangely you do not; as is evidenced by your above posts.

And FYI you have no idea what my views on these issues are, if you look carefully at my Contributions they are about the Five Pillars. CSDarrow (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What specific changes are you proposing should be made to this article, and what sources are you proposing to cite in support of such changes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. You are trying to reduce the general to the specific. CSDarrow (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If the purpose of your posts is to argue about vague generalisations, rather than proposing specific changes to the article, I see no point in further discussion - this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

When Jezebel.com critiques the edits, by editors such as Kevin Gorman (specifically mentioned), the situation has become surreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.51.70 (talk • contribs)

• It's not uncommon for the activities of Wikipedia editors to be talked about offsite. Something I said on Elizabeth Warren's talkpage some time ago made its way in to a news article without me realizing it for months, and more than a couple of my other on-Wiki comments have been quoted in news sources, as have tons of other people's. There's something weird feeling about it, but to the outside world, what happens on Wikipedia has become news of interest. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Against academics and hatred of women

The last sentence of the summary page states "The men's rights movement's beliefs and activities have been criticized by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.[4][5][6][7][8][9]"

It is worded in such a way that gives the impression that there is any sort of consensus on the MRM, which is obviously false. This seems dishonest and intentional to defame the movement. It would be an honest statement if the word "Some" were used, instead of making a sentence which makes it sound like there is an academic consensus on the issue.

It is also completely irrelevant, like if I put 'Cheerios has been criticized by scholars' in the summary paragraph of Cheerios, and cited a scholar who dislikes the taste of cheerios.

It only exists to add opinion on the men's rights movement into the article, through a poisoning of the well, instead of following the standard of putting this information in a criticism section.

If you look carefully, we see that this sentence has been removed a number of times by multiple editors, with user [Gorman] consistently reverting these edits, despite the fact that this behavior is edit warring.

This sentence was previously in its own section about criticism and anti-MRM, as seen in edit here

Once you read the self-description of Kevin Gorman on his page, and look at his edit warring and revisions, it becomes pretty clear that this constant edit is malicious and seeks to add subjectivity to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniktawekim (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body of the article. There is general consensus among scholars that the movement is misogynistic, and it's is well sourced. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only false, but also a ridiculous claim. There is no "general consensus among scholars that the movement is misogynistic" at all. Socio-political philosophers, relevant considering the bulk of the ideological schools of thought being discussed are solidly within our field, of course do not come to any such overly generalized and shallow conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.51.70 (talk • contribs)

There are plenty of reliable sources that make this claim. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you EVF. The article using "well sourced" items is being specific to backing up those claims. I can claim anything, and find sources for this too. I disagree that it should be in the main body of the lead paragraph, as it really does already point the "movement" in a negative light. StevieY19 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The article summarises reliable academic sources - amongst which, the clear consensus is that the MRM is misogynistic. Your argument is with academia, not with Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Would that mean that if I located the articles essentially opposing those facts, I could add to the article with proper citation and thus, see that it wouldn't be removed?StevieY19 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with particular reference to the section on 'due and undue weight', and also read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, with regard to the section on 'scholarship'. We don't 'balance' a consensus amongst the best sources - academia - by cherry-picking contrary views from non-academic sources just because they support an opposing point of view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"by cherry-picking contrary views from non-academic sources just because they support an opposing point of view". You act like the 7 sources cited mean, first, that 7 individual anti-MRM articles is a good enough sample size to pretend there is an academic consensus. Second, You act like those 7 sources WEREN'T cherry picked. Of course an anti-mens-rights community is going to publish things that attack the community. It would be really silly and stupid for an academic participator in mens rights to write an academic article saying "MRM isn't misogynist" in the same sense that a random person writing a book to defend the fact that they aren't a murderer would be out of the ordinary. I could site some Warren Farrel on the page, which is every bit as "academic" of a source as the current cherry picked ones that anti-MRM brigade has brought to the page, but lets be honest here - you don't care about honesty, you are here to insert opinion into what should be a neutral article. This is moreso apparent when its pointed out that he stated citing legitimate sources, but you go ahead and reframe what he said as if he wants to post illegitimate sources.216.68.72.62 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to post articles from academic journals that indicate there is not a scholarly consensus that the MRM is misogynist. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First @Pearl that is not how wikipedia works, go read WP: RS/AC, it is up to the person who claims academic consensus to find an acceptable source that claims academic consensus. Second @Andy the sources don't claim a clear consensus that the MRM is misogynistic. They claim that there are misogynistic elements in the MRM, these two statements are worlds apart. What's more, this article (and from what I can remember on the sources it's the same in them, it's been a while and I could be wrong) does not go into any detail as to what sectors are engaging in misogyny, and what behaviors in these sectors they are classifying as misogynistic. This unfortunately fuels the constant MRM is misogyny theme that is thrown about, which in turn gets push back from the MRM community. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is based predominantly on sources from feminist journals, who naturally stand to gain by making their ideological opponents look bad. Can you imagine what the article on the Democratic Party would look like if the only sources available came from Republican Party press releases and conservative think tanks? That's what this article is like. Well, there's nothing to be done about the problem right now. Wikipedia can only draw on the sources that are there and, until there is a comparable body of scholarly literature from neutral or MRA-leaning places we can do nothing but reflect the biases in the academic literature as it exists now. I suspect that's just a matter of time. MRA types barging in here periodically, being outraged and behaving like a bunch of clowns do not help. Reyk _YO! 01:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy's claim that there is academic consensus is highly questionable and I think he comes off as an ideologue rather than an objective editor.Yes there are academic articles that state that MRAs are anti-women ( and there is an element of truth to this) but to only source articles from Gender Studies Professors with an obvious feminist bias is something that has no place in Wikipedia. You can easily find academic content why Warren Farrell that state otherwise. The article should show both view points. Articles by people like Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel are frequently sourced despite their lack of objectivity. It would be nice if Kevin let the article be unbiased rather than support his pre-conceived views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.25.142 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Amusingly, despite getting called out here, I'm not one of the more frequent editors of this page within the last long period of time. One significant point about Warren Farrell? He doesnt write about the men's rights movement - he writes about men's issues, but in every book of his that I've read (which have admittedly not been all,) he's never commented on the men's rights movement. Flood and Kimmel are both employed academics publishing in academic presses or journals (although some of Farrell's stuff is in academic presses as well in fairness,) there's nothing wrong with citing them despite the fact that they aren't objective. They don't claim to be objective, and we don't require them to objective. When pro-MRA sources exist that meet WP:RS, this article will start to look different. Until then, it's unlikely to. Re: your earlier comment that articles from gender studies professors that are directly about the article in question have no place in Wikipedia - you really seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. We don't exclude academic sources just because we personally object to them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what WP:RS is. It's not about "objectivity". Please read WP:VNT. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nor does the people who get upset that their view points are removed. Those "clowns" stop the article from being an informed piece of literature, to a one sided view point on a subject, which if I seem to see, is not what Wikipedia is made for.StevieY19 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The article, if anything, needs to be toned down. It's already full of accusations towards women, many of which badly sourced (e.g. the 'False accusations' and 'Female privilege', and the constant, repeated references to one writer (Warren Farrell) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And there's the problem. I tried to remove some of it, and was INSTANTLY brought to the metaphoric hand of justice. While I did find the article on the Reddit page, and was shown what someone felt was wrong with it, changing it on my own and making an informed choice of that was not enough to the people that "run" that page. I was then turned into a rouge editor. What sense does that make? The page itself is so leaning to the one side it's comical. The MRM started due to not the feminism movement, but due to the attacks on men BY the feminism movement. So yes, there is that; however, the article is absolutely not neutral in itself, and when any changes are made to fix that, the people who feel the MRM is evil as a whole it seems change it back. It's a farce.StevieY19 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it was in response to the first wave feminist movement because of perceived attacks on men (more that men couldn't control women). As we've told you a few times already, you'll need to find reliable sources if you want to change anything. Quit whining. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, as has been stated, there is a dearth of non-feminist literature on this topic. I don't think the citations for the last sentence is evidence of any sort of academic consensus. I will endeavor to more critically engage with those sources before deciding. That being said it is outlandish to claim that the men's rights movement is misogynistic, by extension that would make feminism misandric no? ACanadianToker (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Read the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that Evergreen and those have supported the changes they have mad have some kind of bias and prejudice, the fact they are telling people to stop whining shows that bias in place. I suggest you remove them as they seem intent to stop people from improving the article. Wickerkid (talk) 02:15, 28May 2014 (UTC)

Argument against MRA statistics

I thought this article could be worth a read considering many of the statistics used for this page echo the sentiments debunked here.

http://debunkingmras.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/debunking-the-mens-rights-movement-x/

I won't post the whole thing here as it's quite lengthy but I do believe that this particular movement skews facts often.

--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (striking post from first week editing) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, not a blog, then you have something. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blog is sourced --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean the conclusions he draws from those sources are accurate. Climate science denier blogs, for instance, often cite papers by climate scientists and try to find something that supports a science denialist position- but grotesquely misrepresent the contents of those papers. A quick read through of this blog suggests the author is doing a similar thing. His point #8 talks about sentencing disparity for spouse murders but, as I understand it, the MRA complaint is about sentencing disparity in general- that for any crime men get longer sentences than women. He's misrepresented the MRA position and then cherry picked a source that refutes the strawman. Sadly, this kind of intellectual dishonesty is rampant on both sides of the debate. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there are some weak parts in there, but you don't think it holds weight in some part, for the categories on this article of 'Health' in relation to '2. Life Expectancy', for example. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I find his point #2 to be the most infuriating part of the whole thing. But it's useful to illustrate that, from the same facts, you can arrive at completely opposite conclusions. The MRA position, IIUC, is that because the life expectancy of men is lower than that of women, men's health issues are more severe and therefore require more funding. His position seems to be that women should get the bulk of the health care funding because dead men don't need healthcare. Both views can be supported by the same source, but his is heartless and morally repulsive. If I found another blog that cited the exact same sources as this one, and came to entirely different conclusions on every point, would you consider that a reliable source on Wikipedia? Reyk _YO! 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'd argue for the removal of that entire section of "Health", because both are relatively weak standings. Men and women should receive equal funding --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are irrelevant. If the blog uses sources, then it is best to just use those sources directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Backlash"?

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.

---

I'm seeing in the first sentence a great deal of bias in this article.

"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]"

On the contrary, the MRM oppose feminism because they see feminist political positions as reinforcement of traditional male gender roles for the sake of making women's lives easier (and in the process infantilizing women) (For instance, N.O.W.'s stance on shared parenting, child support, alimony, for instance reinforce the idea of man as ever-absent 1950's-style provider).

There is an excellent MRM article entitled "breaking the pendulum: tradcons vs feminists"*, which goes into great detail arguing against this incorrect assessment. Any feminist who reads this article will see it's describing what feminists term as "patriarchy hurts men too".

• The website is blacklisted, I don't know why

The citations for this statement consists solely of feminist sources, and it's only natural for feminists, with their ideological basis of "patriarchy theory" (society as male-centric oppression-machine) , to believe any groups advocating for men would be advocating for a return to the paradigm of "patriarchy", and thus view it as a traditional conservative "backlash".

The MRM has a great deal to contribute to feminists if they open their minds. The movements could unify if feminists can let go of the antiquated theories which at this point prevent them from accomplishing their stated tenet of equality.

If said blacklisted website is A Voice for Men, then its not an appropriate WP:RS for this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like for you to substantiate why it's not appropriate WP:RS for this article when plenty of feminist news blogs are used for feminist articles, and similar feminist news-blogs are cited for this specific quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What "feminist news blogs" are cited in this article? I've looked through the citation list and can't see any, though I might have missed something. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my query: what makes the article "breaking the pendulum: tradcons vs feminits", which is penned by AVFM and is a primary source, inappropriate WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. " PearlSt82 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK PearlSt82 but how does that relate to this situation?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AVFM is a WP:SPS that in no way meets any of the criteria for WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AVFM is not a "personal webpage", it's a news site with an editing staff and dozens of independent contributors. The article in question provides citation of the materials they talk about and proceeds to make a point based on those materials. This is a classic example of primary critical writing. I'm beginning to think you're deliberately mis-classifying it to shut out dissent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 15.227.185.75, but PearlSt82 is right. That is self published and is nothing more than a personal blog. It is clearly NOT a news blog. Absolutely not. Thanks for the quick reply Pearl.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Although (and I in no way understand all of what is being discussed) self published content has some very limited uses, but just not for this article it would appear.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

under Mark Miller and PearlSt82's definition of SPS, the NYT, Reuters, and every other journalistic org is an SPS. Also, any study commissioned by anyone and cited is also an SPS. This is nothing but a smoke-screen. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are confused as to what constitutes a news blog....I suggest you review the guidelines for such. And sign your posts please. Accusations of dishonesty from someone not being honest it hilarious.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The only dishonesty I see here is the classification of a news site as an SPS, and a quoted definition of SPS which has no firm basis and thus defaults to "whatever the chief editor doesn't want on the page". I'd like to note the citations utilized for the quote also fall under this definiton of SPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a Newsblog, I am disregarding your comment on that however, 15.227.185.75 I believe you should remember that when you suggest others are being dishonest and are saying such about editors who use their real name and you can't even be bothered to register an account and come up with a fake name only shows a level of hypocrisy many will observe in you.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, since 15.227.185.75 can't even be bothered to follow basic procedures, such as signing their posts, I don't think editors should be taking any suggestions or advice on policy or guidelines here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs From this definition: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals" ---- "professional" is an arbitrary term. You and PearlSt82 are using this arbitrary term to exclude sources you don't personally like, a violation of NPOV

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What newspaper, magazine or news establishment is this personal blog a part of?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So now you're going to be arbitrarily declaring some journalistic organizations are legitimate while others are not. AVFM is its own journalistic organization, involved in the same activites of major papers, including reaching out to subjects to source and confirm their own stories. Do you require NYT to be parented by another organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 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.

POV, Bias and UNDUE

Rather than presenting an overview of the topic this article is a collection of positions taken by the MRM. As such, it essentially serves as a promo/mouth piece for MRM. That violates Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and also, since this isn't a mainstream movement, WP:FRINGE. Honestly, it looks like the whole article needs to be rewritten. Aside from the History section, the whole thing reads like a damn manifesto or something. Tagging accordingly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with you, and had previously tried to implement changes to that effect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of this issue, any changes would likely need broad consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain, in what parts does this article give undue weight to the Men's Rights Movement? The article is about the movement itself, the movement is very significant, and reliable secondary sources have supported that. WP:UNDUE applies when the article only talks about the specific movement. The article seems to have satisfied the criterion, considering that each section on an issue refers back to the majority viewpoint. To reiterate, we give weight to MRM because this is the article about MRM. WP:UNDUE states that we must also mention the majority view in these cases. That seems to have been done. I am removing that tag till we can come to a consensus on the issue, as quoting the user above me that he "had previously tried to implement changes to that effect", we have not appeared to have come to a consensus. 123chess456 (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes "WP:UNDUE states that we must also mention the majority view in these cases". The mainstream scholarly view of the Men's rights movement is not what the article currently records. What is record is what the men's rights movement wants. This is different and this is due to years of interference from off-site elements who want to keep this page - an article they describe as "theirs" - from conforming to this site's standards of verifiability and neutrality. Marek is right this page has been reverted to a pre-2012 one removing all the progress made to make this a wikipedia article. This site's standards will be enforced. BTW 123chess you should only remove tags that are appropriately placed when the issue is resolved--Cailil ^talk 12:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The page for feminism states all of their positions and what they want, with counters to the more controversial aspects of what they would like to achieve. The feminism issues are supported by secondary sources, and I would like to stress that all of the sections on MRM issues are supported by secondary sources. Just because there may be off-site influence on the article, does not preclude it from covering all of MRM's beliefs. Look at Scientology, there is a huge campaign by Scientology to edit the article, yet we still have an obligation to maintain WP:NPOV. You are specifying that we should take action to rectify the article from this off-site influence, by saying that the influence is rampant in the article. I would like to ask you to restate where there is any off-site influence, and point to specifically where the influence has affected the article in its current state, so it can be corrected. The fact that there might be off-site influence is not a basis for claiming that certain sections do not adhere to WP:NPOV, there must be specific POV language in order to qualify as a violation. 123chess456 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think an article about any social movement needs to prominently cover the positions held by that movement, so I am not particularly concerned that the article on the MRM talks about the positions held by the MRM. I've read over the article again, and the sections about the views of the MRM are written in a descriptive rather than promotional tone, and generally well sourced. I further note that a substantial number of the sources used in this article are by authors hostile or skeptical towards the MRM, and so I don't think any content based on those sources can ever be really promotional. The "Issues" section probably is a bit lengthy compared with the rest of the article, and talks too much about specific issues than broader issues. Reyk _YO! 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have contributed some content to this article (mostly in the history section) and I have to agree with Volunteer Marek here. The article should have never morphed into this laundry list of issues and concerns. There are thousands of things that men's rights activists view as discrimination against (white, heterosexual) men, e.g. ladies' night, and Wikipedia shouldn't have to serve as a place to list the movement's grievances. I am not aware of any other article about a movement that consists of a collections of "issues". For instance (because someone brought up the article about feminism), the feminism article (thankfully) doesn't have sections on rape and domestic violence, social security, military service, ... from a feminist pov. I am also concerned about the amount of unreliable MRM sources used in this article. The paper by men's rights activist Kumar from the Save Indian Family Foundation (ref # 58) is a conference paper and isn't a reliable source. I fail to see the reason why we continue to use such sources in the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Content is driven by the Five Pillars and not by the content of other pages. You consider Kumar's paper unreliable, yet this page is dripping with the unsupported and unpeer reviewed opinions of 'scholars' who are openly hostile to the subject matter of this page. Some of these citations don't even mention the notions they are supporting. CSDarrow (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you see a source on this page that fails WP:RS (i.e., lacks editorial oversight, as conference papers do,) please point it out so it can be addressed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have done so repeatedly in the past, what good do you think it will do now. CSDarrow (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recall you having done so, but there was also probably a nine month period where I didn't monitor this page very much. If you've done so in the past, feel free to just link me to a diff so I can take a look at it; if there are other sources that fail RS, I'd like to deal with them too. I took a quick glance over the sourcing just now and didnt see anything that obviously fails RS, but with 157 sources in the article, I could be very well missing something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, considering your blanket statement about the reliability of conference publications, yet you consider books from academic presses reliable without question, I am concerned about your expertise on these matters. What experience of Academia do you have other than as a student? CSDarrow (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Stepping in. CSDarrow please keep the conversation about the article, not about other users. As Kevin mentioned, point out sources that you feel are not RS and state why (or now that there are more people here, repost your concerns if they were not answered/discussed in the past). Kevin's statement was that the sources, at a glance, appear okay. They have asked you to provide examples of your concerns and have keep redirecting conversation (this time toward a specific user). Please answer the question(s) or let it go. Nothing is gained by personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• EvergreenFir, my point is pertinent as Kevin is using Argument by Authority with respect to RS. It is not a personal attack. I have challenged many references before on this page. I have also provided a detailed break down of the different levels of reliability and nuances of academic publishing that might be helpful for editing here. I have been warned that further pursuit of this issue is considered being argumentative and going against an agreed upon consensus. If I was to highlight a particular citation I would be blocked before you got to read this post, by those waiting in the wings. My next block is 6 months. This is the climate of editing that has evolved on this page. The only way this page will improve is if those who are allowed to edit it develop a more sophisticated understanding of Academic publishing and apply it with good faith and conscious. My personal opinion of this page is it has reached a stage of Kafkaesque absurdity and is an embarrassment to the principles underpinning Wikipedia. Being realistic, the only thing that will mend this is the eventual march of time. CSDarrow (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I am absolutely making an appeal to authority. That's a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. We privilege sources that we consider to be writing from positions of authority over our own individual opinions. It's an approach that has significant downsides; you see them here, on a page where the prevailing consensus of sources doesn't match your own personal view - I see the same downsides on plenty of other pages. It's not a perfect system. But it's one of the cornerstones that we've used to build Wikipedia, which is, as a whole, an incredibly useful resource. You may not like Kimmel et al, but they're academics publishing about the men's rights movement in academic sources, so we weight their views much more heavily than we weight the views of fringe bloggers. I have experience in academia other than being a student, but don't particularly feel like describing it to someone who borrowed a pseudonym from someone who wouldn't have particularly appreciated most of your views ;) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your Argument by Authority is, to quote "lacks editorial oversight, as conference papers do". I don't think you have the expertise to make such a definitive and blanket statement, especially as a general statement I believe it to be untrue. Yet we are to accept unsupported opinions from books published by Academic Presses without question. I don't think you have understood my post or the nuances of the reliability of different 'Academic' sources. CSDarrow (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have a lot to say on this. Please hear me out. No one here seems willing to compromise. This is a very controversial issue and we need to stop pretending that completely shutting out the other side is a NPOV. It isn't. There is a very clear conflict of interest in how this, and other related articles are laid out. This article for instance, is written like a forum post, it has points that the MRM has, and then feminist-sources which claim to debunk it. This is a clear violation of NPOV as it is taking a position on a controversial issue, and not to mention that WP:BATTLEGROUND is being disregarded.

The Men's Rights Movement is a group of people advocating for something, which is known as a social movement and that doesn't constitute a theory, like, say, the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory, and WP:FRINGE does not apply to social movements, making WP:UNDUE irrelevant. And note that FRINGE is a guideline, not a rule. Rigidly insisting that it must be fringe while others don't agree shows a clear bias on your part. Your disagreeing with a social movement is irrelevant to how notable it is. I think it's a mistake to deny that there isn't a two-way bias going on. There are strongly pro-feminist persons fighting against strongly anti-feminist persons. Pro-feminist sources are added without a second thought with zero attempt to determine if they are WP:BIASED.

Sources which are not critical of the MRM are declared to be unreliable sources. If the stance on the reliability of a source is questioned, the only response anyone ever gets is: "No, I'm absolutely right nothing, is going to change." Declarations of "because I said so" are not valid reasons why you think a source is or is not reliable. Because this is a controversial issue, you're going too need to be more willing to explain exactly why you think what you do. If you cannot come up with a coherent reason why, then people are going to assume you're pushing your personal beliefs instead of holding a NPOV. People who are claiming this should abstain themselves from editing these articles because they're displaying a complete unwillingness to work with others or to even consider any compromise and that is an unhealthy attitude to bring into an area prone-to controversy. People claiming to be neutral often characterize every individual who is not conforming to a feminist view as untrustworthy and treat them with open hostility and wave the word "misogynist" in their face with passive-aggressive demands/threats to prove that the MRM isn't misogynist (constituting a clear violation of WP:PERSONAL), in other words: WP:GOODFAITH is not being observed as well as WP:DONTBITE, because anyone who isn't doing what the other wants is getting attacked.

This page is for documenting what the movement advocates, not to inject your personal beliefs of how they're wrong. A more appropriate format would be similar to Occupy movement because this is a social movement and not a theory (not subject to [[[WP:FRINGE]]), with what the men's rights movement itself says in the body of the article, then reactions/criticisms of the movement and what it stands for in its own section so there isn't a petty back and forth in the other parts of the page of "no you're wrong" edits. Also, this "anything to do with the MRM isn't a reliable source" reasoning is highly inappropriate. This article is about the movement. So sourcing the claims it makes DOES make MRM sites credible sources. Refutations of their claims by field experts can go in the proposed criticism section. This layout would be more appropriate for both sides because it gives more accurate coverage of the MRM, and clarifies the criticisms against, making the criticisms more easily comprehensible and coherent without making the whole page make look like a petty game of back and forth. Also a possibility is another article for the criticisms. --Matt (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mjr162006:, would you consider breaking this large wall of text into 3-4 paragraphs? Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Done such for you. (If you disagree with me refactoring/any of what I did, feel free to revert. It is your comment, after all. Just trying to improve readability.) Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• You complain that sources are added without any attempt to determine if they are WP:BIASED. As the page you linked notes, biased sources are perfectly fine to use as long as they meet the other requirements of WP:RS. A source like, say, the Politics of Masculinity by Michael Messner, written by an academic and published by an academic press meets all the requirements of WP:RS, it has editorial oversight, is written by an accepted scholar in the field, etc. Messner is widely viewed by the MRM as biased, but that doesn't particularly matter. If you have a pro-MRM source that meets WP:RS, please link it already, because so far pretty much no one has done so. I'm sure every perceived profeminist poster here would be more than happy to include pro-MRM sources in the article that meet WP:RS, the problem is, no one has presented such sources.

I've also never seen anyone here demand that anyone prove the MRM isn't misogynist, and such 'proof' if presented on a Wikipedia talk page wouldn't do much unless it was a link to a high quality reliable source that said the MRM isn't misogynistic (in which case it would be appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement about whether or not parts of the MRM are misogynistic.) Pretty much all I've seen here is the accurate observation that people writing in reliable sources have described parts of the MRM as misogynistic. That's not passive aggressive or a demand, it's just a verifiable statement of fact. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No one can present a source that fits your demands because any source that is not critical of them is declared to be a self-published source, without any proof of that declaration. "You can't use that, that is just a self-published source." "Why?" "Because I said so." You move the goal posts on everyone. As for the demands to prove that MRM is not misogynistic as a whole, there are examples on this page about a month back, however I'm uncertain if it's appropriate to link to them and if that would be acceptable or not. I'm not sure that'd be in the spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

But as to battleground, there also doesn't seem to be any attempts made to avoid bringing feminist prejudice against the MRM into the article and related articles. No attempt is made to determine whether or not the sources labeling the movement as hateful have self-serving agenda and any questioning to their reliability as a source is rejected out of hand. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for external sources to try to silence groups they disagree with. As these opinions are clear attempts to slander those they don't agree with, at the very least it should be handled as "it is the opinion of [person making the claim] that the MRM is misogynistic," instead of that opinion being treated as a fact when there is no consensus that it is.

Speaking to that, for a source about the MRM as a whole being misogynistic or not, I believe that this should suffice. The SPLC, as I understand, is considered a high quality reliable source. And it says very clearly that it only pointed out specific cases it felt were misogynistic and that it does not label MRAs as being part of a movement that is hateful, therefore misogynistic, as a whole. --Matt (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We have completely laid out standards as to what constitutes a selfpublished source, what constitutes a reliable source, etc. I haven't moved the goalposts as to what is required for a source at all. They've been the same the whole time. And even if I had, I'm not the arbiter of acceptable sourcing - you can always seek additional opinions about particular sources at WP:RSN. I'll note that you've again made a post complaining that I am arbitrarily discarding sources without posting a single source for consideration. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The article states "sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist" in the lede and the only other time the wording is used in the article is under the relation to feminism section - "Sectors of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by some as exhibiting misogynistic tendencies.[5][37][49][7][8][9][50][51] The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to the movement "voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many."". In no way does this describe the entire MRM as misogynist and in both cases uses the word "sectors". PearlSt82 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is reliable on very little, it was recently removed off the FBI website, and the comment on MRM being misogynist violates UNDUE. I am sure there are sources saying 'sectors' of the Feminist Movement are man-haters as well somewhere, yet we don't see that in the lede there. There are established methods in place on Wikipedia for determining reliability of sources, I would argue few of them have been adequately applied to the sources on this page. The verification of the reliability of sources here is as best amateurish and at times partisan. The comment above that the MRM is a Social Movement and not a body of political theory is very accurate.CSDarrow (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed from the resource list, but is still partnered with the FBI. That aside, it's not undue when it's so often stated by various sources. And the because feminism is much larger, I'm not surprised "man hating" isn't listed in the lead. I do see other criticisms mentioned though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

" ...but is still partnered with the FBI", is it? What does partnered even mean?. You comments highlight many of the points made here. CSDarrow (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@CSDarrow: see [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See this etc for an explanation of why the SPLC link was removed: they chose to only list government resources. They removed the NAACP, ADL, NOW, and every other NGO at the same time. The reliability of the SPLC has been discussed at WP:RSN multiple times - feel free to go review those discussions, or even start a new one if you feel like it. I note, again, that despite your assertion that we are ignoring reliable pro-MRM sources, you have failed to link a single source that we are purportedly ignoring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"...your assertion that we are ignoring reliable pro-MRM sources", when have a I made such a claim? Withdraw your accusation please. The suggestion that the SPLC is reliable is an insult to Wikipedia, this is evident to the most casual of observers. As to you link and explanation of the SPLC's removal, good grief Kevin. CSDarrow (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, looking back at the history of the page, I apparently confused you with other people asserting that we were ignoring pro-MRM sources. You were just asserting that we were using anti-MRM sources that didn't meet WP:RS while refusing to provide specifics as to what those sources might be. Sorry for any confusion that mistake entailed. I'm probably done replying in this section until someone actually brings up an actual point though. If there are specific sources you question the reliability of, WP:RSN is a good secondary forum for gathering additional outside input about their reliability. Similarly, with pro-MRM sources, I'd suggest bringing them up here, at RSN, or both, for an evaluation of their reliability. Please understand that that evaluation will be by Wikipedia's standards, which probably don't match up very well with your own. WP:IDHT style behavior is not likely to lead to anywhere beneficial for anyone involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem Kevin is that WP:RSN, although having some excellent people, becomes overwhelmed with outside partisan voices and never comes to a consensus. I have brought up many individual citations to scrutiny and will get blocked if I was to revisit my grievances. In essence there no adequate higher body to resolve matters. As a consequence at times I feel we are ruled by the mob. I fear the only solution to this is time itself. CSDarrow (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't promise you you won't get blocked if you bring up something at RSN, although I doubt you will (I can't really block or unblock you myself because despite having the technical capacity to do so, I'd be considered too involved to do so.) I can say if you question particular sources, I would encourage you to bring them up there, and will actively discourage anyone else from blocking you. If you have particular sources in mind (that aren't the SPLC source that's been brought up so many times,) I'll even raise them myself for you on RSN if you'd like. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to state that one source, "Attack of the 50-foot feminist agenda", comes from Boston (magazine), which, if you look at the picture that we have of the magazine on Wikipedia, is little more than a local magazine that has sensationalist headlines such as "Why Reality Is Even Scarier Than What You See On TV" and "The Real Life Dramas of Young Doctors". This article is about "The Terrifyingly Nasty, Backstabbing, and Altogether Miserable World of the Suburban Mom". In their top bar, less than a ninth of it is devoted to "news", with the rest being devoted to things such as "Home Design" and "Weddings". Other potentially unreliable sources are the myriad of papers published by SAGE Publications, of which seven are cited in this article, as it accepted an deliberately falsified and incorrect paper from John Bohannon, as part of his experiment to discredit open access publications in his paper 'Who's Afraid of Peer Review?'. Another unreliable source is "Backlash: Angry men's movements", printed by Xlibris Corporation, a print-on-demand company, that does no quality control of its own. Anything published by Xlibris is only different from a blog post in that the authors have paid Xlibris to print their books. There are many unreliable sources, if you know where to look. 123chess456 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boston magazine source, you're right, is weak. It looks like it's only used to back up one statement though, and that's both not a controversial statement and a statement that already has two other refs. I'll take it out tomorrow if no one objects. There's nothing wrong with the SAGE sources; you're right that SAGE got burned pretty hard by Bohannon, but almost every major outlet has had at least a couple comical mistakes in its history - if we disqualified sources that otherwise met WP:RS just for that, we wouldn't have many sources. Dewey Defeats Truman, retractions from Nature and Science, etc. With Xlibris, you are absolutely correct that the publisher itself isn't categorically reliable. However, the chapter was written by Michael Flood, who is an academic who has published with much better publishers on the same topic, and even that particular chapter has been cited ~50 times, some in quite good journals. WP:SPS has a significant exception to our general dislike of self-published sources - quoting from it, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think that pretty clearly makes the Xlibris Michael Flood source acceptable, although if you'd like to question that one further, WP:RSN is an excellent place to gather the opinions of other editors.

So: the Boston Mag source is pretty lame, but the SAGE and Michael Flood sources are fine in my book. I suspect any discussion at WP:RSN would back up that opinion. I'll go ahead and take out the Boston Mag source tomorrow without honestly bothering to examine it's reliability in excruciating detail, just because that sentence is already backed by two other, higher quality citations. I'll also take a general look over sources as I have time, and welcome anyone to point out particular sources for discussion - I really would love to get any lame sources (like the Boston one) out of the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Herein lays the problem. Just cause Michael Flood says something, or any academic for that matter, does no necessarily make it so. What if Michael Flood an academic and scholar said London is the capital of France? Being an academic and scholar is not sufficient. You are also describing a wozzle effect in your citation evaluation. When dealing with uncontentious issues citation reliability can tolerate a bit of slack, here we can not. The application of WP:RSN here is at best amateurish and at worst seemingly partisan. Wikipedia needs a group of experts in these matters to arbitrate them without interference. CSDarrow (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your argument here pretty much explains why the word of academics is more reliable than bloggers or what not. Sure, it is entirely possible that Michael Flood could try to argue that "London is the capital of France", but he works in a field where that accusation would be challenged, written against, or, more likely, not published. That is why reliability is important. Anybody on the internet can make a website and start blogging that "London is the capital of France". It is in academia that discussions such as these can have verifiable worth. Furthermore, if Wikipedia did have a group of experts in these matters, surely they would be academics? What you are describing is exactly what academia is --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: "but he works in a field where that accusation would be challenged, written against, or, more likely, not published", I am not sure that is the case, especially the "not published " part. There are ways of establishing the reliability of citations, simply being a 'scholar' and your words being published is not it. CSDarrow (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that it isn't always the case, there are plenty of books published in academia that have since been rebutted, that's the nature of the process. However, you have to understand that a source written by an academic who works and studies in the field of gender studies is more reliable as a source than an independently published work that hasn't been through said process? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, I just don't understand what sources you are suggesting the article should use instead of ones written by people who study in this field? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not advocating for the inclusion of any material. I am commenting on the criteria used for material that is already included and the general ineptness of source evaluation here. CSDarrow (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am now removing the Boston magazine source, as we've seemed to reach a consensus that it is not reliable. 123chess456 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Mjr162006:, I can't remember an instance when someone wrote "Because I said so" as a reason to dismiss sources or remove content. A few days ago someone suggested that we use this page and the references contained therein as sources. I explained that the references lead to Wikipedia articles and blog entries, which are unreliable sources, that the page contradicts scholarly sources, and that there is no editorial oversight. The problem isn't so much the use of unreliable sources (e.g., avoiceformen, malestudies.org, etc.) as POV forking (e.g., [2]) and misrepresenting reliable sources (e.g., [3]). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Belfort Bax

The following links to a page that references primary, notable historical sources of MRM activities over the last century which the main article has left out:

First and second wave of the men’s rights movement 124.170.100.102 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, not a reliable source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, you must be a little 'off the air' making such a glib statement, Sonicyouth86. Try harder. I wasn't saying that the linked page was a reliable source, but rather that the linked-page has some references leading "to" reliable sources, if you follow the trail a little, which I made absolutely clear above; quote: "The following links to a page that references some primary, notable historical sources". Go back and read the sources the page leads to - for real this time. What you will find is citations to original newspaper articles and books. 124.171.199.149 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For instance, the arguably greatest men's rights advocate that ever lived, Ernest B. Bax, who spurred public discussion about men's rights issues around the world, is not mentioned in the main article. What a joke! 124.171.199.149 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Something Ernest B. Bax wrote in the year 1913 in his book The Fraud of Feminism is particularly relevant to this Wikipedia article about the men's rights movement:

“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” - Ernest B. Bax

Not bad for 1913. However I'm sure that same "bluff" in the main entry will continue to be enforced by feminist editors here who claim (scoff) that the MRM grew out of men's liberation (aka feminist) movement in the early 1970s. 124.171.199.149 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Bax largely influenced by Marx and Engels? If so, then even his work would have been a response to a different Feminist movement. Interesting point though. That said, one book doesn't constitute a movement Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IP editor, the linked page has references leading to Wikipedia articles and blog entries, i.e. unreliable sources, about what the author(s) consider(s) men's rights organizations, activists and texts. The page conflates antifeminist, men's rights groups and the organized men's rights movement that didn't emerge until the late 1960s. Belfort Bax was undoubtedly an antifeminist writer ([4][5][6][7]...) whose writings might have influenced forerunners of the men's rights movements (the same way that Otto Weininger's antifeminist and antisemitic musings did) but I haven't been able to find reliable sources suggesting that Bax (or Weininger) was a men's rights activist. By the way, the Austrian Aequitas and Justitia are already mentioned in the main entry, with proper sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't a forum, threads that aren't about improving the article will be closed. Please review this site's guidelines on use of the talk page--Cailil ^talk 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If the talk page is not a forum, why should the article be?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Point made. Off topic and this has been discussed before. Complaints about Wikipedia in general belong somewhere else.

---

Hi,

Discussions about improving the article are somewhat moot until participants agree on what constitutes improvement.

Obviously, the article should not be a rostrum for uncritical self-promotion; otoh, and equally obvious, it shouldn't be a Volksgerichtshof for opponents' condemnation. However, this is the conflict, as far as I can read it from the talk pages.

This conflict plays out on several levels:

- Wikipedia ideals and guidelines: I assume that the top WP ideal is that content should be true. Guidelines to secure this include "Verifiability" etc. etc.; however, when verifiability trumps truth, something is amiss. Then the guidelines serve to obscure, not to clarify; they have been misunderstood or misapplied. Here, of course, it is paramount who gets to decide what the guidelines say and/or do not say, mean and/or do not mean; that there is a discussion about this, is a bad sign. Applying them differently to different pages would be an even worse one.

- Reliable sources: The application of, say, the RS guideline is clearly a case where one should consider whether one is using it as a guideline or as a hammer. The empirical support for this criticism is to be found in the article. The article is supposed to be about, i.d. present the MRM and its views, yet most paragraphs contain not only description of MRM views, but also a discussion of the subject matter of these views: if there is mention of "MRM's claim of men's percentage of x", there is usually a presentation of somebody's opposing view of men's percentage of X, thereby conflating the presentation of the MRM with a discussion of men's percentage of X. Furthermore, while there are references for some of this, in at least one instance sources are interpreted by editors in ways that result in assertions which the original source does not warrant. This shows that, like guideline interpretation privilege, source interpretation privilege is also an important factor in hammering the shape of the article.

I saw that there was criticism of the article wrt. too many mens' issues - editors might reflect on the cicrumstance that there is no article allowing for the listing of mens' issues (or mens' rights, or mens' concerns, call it what you will), and not for lack of editors wanting to create and write such an article, but because e.g. "mens' rights" was nominated for deletion, AFAIK.

IMO not allowing listing concerns that MRM's actually do list as their concerns here on the MRM page, while not allowing listing them on a separate page for that particular purpose, dangerously approaches incompleteness, AKA "the whole truth", which, together with "nothing but the truth" makes for truth, unquotemarked and plain and ordinary. This is where Wiki as a whole must be considered. If it's part of the picture, it won't do to do a Kreml Photoshop job on it. If the MRM article is not the place, fine; but then the issues and concerns must be moved to another article; denying one half of mankind a voice is ... not nice.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I find your assertion that the website is "denying one half of mankind a voice", and I am presuming from your argument that you mean the male gender, really curious. I just have to ask, how exactly is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that in 2011 had 91% male editors, denying the male half of mankind a voice? Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be a funny assertion if it wasn't just so sad because it's true, just not in the way the IP intended. Wikipedia is denying way more than one half of mankind a voice: 93% of editors across *all* wikimedia projects (287 languages...) can at least read English, 35%ish are proficient in at least one programming language, 91% are male-identified, the vast majority are from the global north, etc... Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read the argument repeatedly on both feminist and male rights websites, that is, the one concerning the website not depicting their views, or giving a voice to their gender. After editing in both men's rights and feminism articles, I find that almost every feminist article has a distinctly labelled criticism section, yet there are constant complaints on the men's rights page as to there being any inclusion of criticism to the movements ideas in the article. Furthermore, when discussing this criticism, many say that it is bias against their gender, despite the fact that the majority of the editors on here are male, and from this they are frequently editing with male editors. I genuinely don't understand it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of the above, but this strikes me as odd:

"...there are constant complaints on the men's rights page as to there being any inclusion of criticism to the movements ideas in the article."

The lede specifically labels "sectors of the movement" misogynist. That's hardly a whitewash. Arkon (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he said constant complaints, not constant successful complaints. There have been pretty constant complaints about the inclusion of criticism of the MRM; they just haven't been successful. That said, someone should probably hat this whole section, since it is fairly off topic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

First, true on the hatting. Second, my comment was in relation to the seeming comparison about these complaints with a "distinctly labelled criticism section" in feminist articles. Arkon (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about articles such as Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Cultural feminism, Marxist feminism, Womanism, Postmodern feminism, Sex-positive feminism, Transnational feminism, Post-structural feminism, New feminism, Standpoint feminism, Postcolonial feminism, and Third-wave feminism. As well as Antifeminism and Postfeminism obviously. Anyway, I agree about what you said, it is better to call "sectors of the movement" misogynist than the movement as a whole, as sources tend to be talking about certain sectors within it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing per request EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 22 April 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 7 May 2014

For greater precision in the definition please insert the word "always" as it appears in the following sentence. The men's rights movement contests claims that men always have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression. Chiefmugwhump (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Done 123chess456 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Most print sources I have around (including the two cited) don't actually support the wording change. That said, I think the wording change is actually a good one, and I'm pretty much positive sources could be found to back it up, so I have no problem with the change. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Marital rape section

"Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom,[105] the United States,[106][81] and India[107] have opposed legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings,[108][109][110] the belief that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant,[111] and in India anxiety about relationships[112] and the future of marriage as such laws give women "grossly disproportional rights".[113] Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men's rights organization, has opposed recent efforts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that "no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."[112]"

Take a look at that. Do you see it yet?

While I would not contend the broad nature of the MRM, I would argue that facts pertaining to cultural norms and respective struggles have nothing to do with the movement itself. That men in certain countries happen to be campaigning for marital rape and other antiquated norms is not the subject at hand.

Just as burka clad women in Saudi Arabia may support a patriarchal, Sharia system but are not said to be part of the feminist movement; I would very much enjoy it if the selective bias were removed from this article and all sources were from reputable academics, specifically versed with the MRM movement. This means no more cherry picking of male injustice and clumsily sticking it in the article like a sneaky 5 year old.

If you want to write your own articles about contemporary male behaviour in x y z country, have at it. Just don't do it on this article. 31.220.200.121 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, this article is about contending about the movement, and who better to give their opinions on the movement than an MRA themselves? That's why it was appropriated with what I see as due weight. When talking about their own movement, I think it's beneficial and necessary to include the thoughts of those are who involved in the movements. Tutelary (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Appropriating an article by adding due weight is a great thing to do, I agree. Except the information provided is at a head with the description of the MRM. "The men's rights movement contests claims that men always have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression"

Considering the above tenants of the MRM, surely information pertaining to male inequalities and institutionalised oppression is what this article should contain. If you are going to make the statement that this movement is about men's equal rights then add contradicting viewpoints, at least explain it better. Put it in a cultural context and remove it from the MRM movement in the Western, civilized world. It is like putting a diamond next to an amethyst and conflating their properties into the word 'shiny'. 31.220.200.121 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This just showed up in my watchlist and I decided to give you a response. Though the problem with this page has been the lack of reliable sources dictating what the movement actually is/believes. To be able to add content, having a source to it (especially to this page since it's so controversial) is a must. Even more so if it's reliable, then it could be given its due weight. If you were to provide a few sources that support the content that you wish to add, I'm sure we'd love to hear about them. Tutelary (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, I greatly contest your phrasing of "Western, civilized world" and what that suggests about the East (i.e. that it equates that it may be uncivilised). We should not wipe sections of the article because they focus on the ideology of different nations and cultures and there are plenty of Saudi feminists (e.g. the Association for the Protection and Defense of Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my phrasing lacked tact. I have the utmost respect for human rights activists in Sharia countries. They put their lives on the line daily. I will get back to you on sources, I am actually beginning to research this topic specifically for a Psychology paper. However, I would still remove parts which directly contradict the description of the movement in the article, or contextualise them. Just a suggestion 31.220.200.121 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, I appreciate the effort, and I do agree with that notion. If it is a different (and unconnected) arm of the movement, then it should be contextualised as such (i.e. you would not criticise transfeminists for the actions of radical feminists and so on...) Do you have any sources that show how the movement has acted to help prevent marital rape? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Drowninginlimbo, if there were to be reliable sources dictating that do criticize transfeminists for the actions of radical feminists, and if no original research were to be done, I don't think we'd be justified in omitting it. Tutelary (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly. I haven't used this before. There is a citations [111] that asserts that the movement contends marital rape based on the marriage covenant. This seemed odd to me. Following the source it led to this snippet "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." This is unclear at best, and disingenuous at worst. It is clear that the conservative Christian groups feel this way, but it is not clear that the men's rights organizations share the view. It seems at odds since there is no religious center to the movement that I could discern, and there would therefore be no concern for a covenant in the same manner that a Christian group would have. --AznBagel 28 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AznBagel (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

AznBagel, you are absolutely correct. I have removed the offending sentence, it is a poorly sourced claim and does not appear to at all accurately represent the ideology of anything other than Christian organizations. — Fuebar (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Must reference sources always specifically refer to the MRM? Or, may they discuss issues documented elsewhere as supported by the MRM (but without specific mention of the MRM)?

One issue that has been contentious here is whether a reference source must always mention the men's rights movement (MRM) specifically, rather than simply referring to a men's rights issue (with no mention of the MRM) but that is elsewhere documented as supported by the MRM.

Seems to me that if an issue issue is a clearly documented MRM issue, then a source that investigates that issue, even if it does not specifically mention the MRM, is of sufficient relevance to be included.

I am certain there are editors here who disagree. Perhaps this issue deserves further discussion.

As is, there are many references in the article that are critical of men's rights issues but that do not specifically mention the MRM. If it is the consensus that sources used in the article must specifically refer to the MRM, then should that standard apply to both sources supportive, and critical, of the MRM? Memills (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you name the references that do this? We don't want to commit original research. Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

For example, the greater rate of male suicides can be sourced to references that specifically mention the MRM. Can articles that are highly relevant to this topic (e.g., that document suicide statistics), but that don't specifically mention the MRM, be cited in this article? Memills (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue to restrict our references to ones that specifically talk about the MRM. What we are trying to avoid is that this article becomes a platform for expounding on the beliefs held by MRMs. Instead, it must remain a platform for telling the reader what are the important points made by MRMs, as observed in the media and in scholarly works. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that same standard apply to both supportive and critical sources? For example, there are references in the article that are critical of an issue supported by the MRM, but that do not themselves specifically refer to the MRM. For example, statistical sources that may challenge MRM claims about rates of domestic violence, but that don't specifically mention the MRM. Do these sources need to be deleted? Memills (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there are sources that have been introduced simply to pose a counter claim to a claim made by an MRM source, but which does not mention the MRM or its claim then including them is OR and SYNTH. On the other hand if the MRM makes a claim and no-one else comments on its validity in reliable sources, then that claim is likely to be non-notable and probably shouldnt be included in the first place.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cf. feminist movement. Same issue, same policy? Memills (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The policy is the same. You will of course need to be sure that consensus supports you in rmoving material nonetheless, but that should be easy to gain if you can demonstrate that a particular source included is not about the topic of the article but has been introduced simply to contradict a tangential claim. In some cases it may have been included through a valid editorial decision that a specific source is includeable in spite of not treating the topic directly. (For example it might be relevant to include a source about the mainstream view of climate change in an article that describes the ideas of a climate change skeptic even if that source does not mention the particular skeptic that the article is about). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

new section by User:wickerkid

I am new to WIKI but I have to say that the men's rights page has clearly been modified by those who either 1. Don't know much about it 2. Don't like it very much which comes through with the inaccuracies included in the description. As far as I can tell the description of the men's rights movement should be described in the same way as feminism is described on this site but with a male focus. What we have now is just offensive.Wickerkid (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this to the bottom of the talk page, per talk page guidelines convention. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)