Talk:Men's movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Men's Liberation and Rights

It seems to me that all of these groups could equally claim to be working for "men's liberation" and "men's rights" so I wonder if doesn't make more sense to simplify language for the non-feminist, non-mytho groups just as Masculist and Father's rights. Is "men's rights" in the UK and Australia really conceived as only applying to biological fathers? Does anyone who uses the "masculist" label really think that only they are working to liberate men? It seems to me that "masculist" and "father's rights" are much more precise terms, although certainly "masculist" is much less common. Rorybowman 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Masculist and Men's liberation appear to be quite separate, despite their earlier conflation in the article. See XYonline Men's movements An outline and assessment of the men's movement, from Community Quarterly, Special issue: Masculinities, No. 46, June, 1998, (note does not mention masculism). -- Paul foord 12:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that "men's liberation" ("women's liberation", too) are pointless constructs and should be retained only as historical footnotes. There ought to be a key page called "masculism" and items like men's rights, fathers' rights be no more than subtypes. References to "masculinism" should be removed - I have never, ever come across that expression! And by the way they should not redirect to women's pages as they seem to do now. - celtish 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)plonkeroo.

Such terms are historical constructs as far as you can consider such a historical process finished. "Women's lib" by now has achieved suffrage, pretty much equal pay and generally equal rights in society. The goals of "men's lib" are far from being even one of the main considerations of the more general progressive movement. Dnavarro (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said there celtish. simple and logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved a statement

An unregistered user added the following to the article. It's unsourced and very slanted. I don't know whether it's possible to state some part of this in a more encyclopedic manner. Durova 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abusive bullies

"There are men who simply join men's groups as they see men as naturally violent and abusive. So they think a man's group would automatically support abuse, domestic abuse and violence. Such men will often label non violent men with offensive terms. Numerous so called men's groups are simply voice boxes of hooligans, and bullies. Many men's groups do not represent men but simply represent abusive men, but such men normally dehumanize non violent men, so do not even recognize that they are not speaking for all men. It is a fact that some men, simply join these groups to draw attention to themselves. Often seeing this in the same way that extreme right wing parties often attract attention seeking men and women who want to appear extreme. It is damaging to men and women, thAt such abusive men think they speak for all men."

---- The unsourced, unattributed comment "Abusive bullies" beggars belief and is nonsensical twaddle of the worst kind and I'm sure its writer knows it. If I wrote something similar about feminists I would be BANNED. Seems it's one set of rules for the goose, another for the gander. celtish 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the first paragraph pro-feminist men?

what happened to that policy of non-bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .

You are stereotyping. Men join men's groups for the same reasons women join women's groups.

That is clearly obvious! celtish 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the article is about the Mens Movement, not men who support the womens movement. By name alone the article is out of place "Pro-Feminist". Pro (Latin, ablative:in front of, before/on behalf of, for) Feminist (A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.). As we can clearly see, that paraghaph does not belong under this heading. KJM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.162.73 (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that conclusion. The pro-Feminist section should not appear on this page. Having pro-Feminism advertised on a Mens rights page is the sort of incursion we as Men today expect, but do Not accept. The Judaism page does not feature a pro-Nazi section. Nor should this, please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed pro-feminist portions from this article. Pro-feminist men and feminism in general belong to articles on feminism and other movements sympathetic to it. I guess an article on the men's movement - one that is routinely demonized by feminists - should not be overrun by feminist topics. Wwmargera (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia

This is Wikipedia. We TRY to have NPOV but that doesn't mean that the editors will cooperate. Smith Jones 22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why everyone can edit it. :) —Memotype::T 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to masculist movement?

Common reference aside, women's movement redirects to feminist movement so shouldn't that be reflected here? I believe it to be more inclusive. Whereas men's movement suggests only men moving for men's rights, masculist movement also includes women in the movement for men's rights, much like feminism does not discriminate like the term women's movement. If there are no objections, I'll move it soon. Tyciol 11:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the word(s) "movement(s)" is/are superfluous and meaningless in all contexts? Simply masculism and feminism would suffice and be more rational. - celtish 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)plonkeroo

Challenge to unsourced paragraph

"The development of the men's movement in the US can be divided into two eras with distinctly different focuses. Earlier, the men's movement was sympathetic to feminism and reached its peak in the 1970s and 1980s. Many detractors saw this approach as emasculating and misandrist. As a movement it was generally not accepted by men, though it gained considerable support from women, particularly by single parents raising boys. More recently, starting in the early 1990s, masculism is more evident, more "pro-male" with a rejection of perceived politically correct gender feminism which was seen as anti-male (or misandrist). It has also been called the "feminist backlash" as a response to the perceived excesses of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Supporters of the masculist movement generally reject many, if not most, of the philosophical points of the previous men's movement."

This section is unsourced and in my opinion, it should be changed.

Please consider that members of the men's movement currently campaign for gender equity laws while some members of the feminist movement campaign against gender equity laws.

Members of the fathers' rights movement support the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. Gender-equity feminists and individual feminists also support shared parenting. The National Organization of Women used to support shared parenting, but now they campaign against it.

Michael H 34 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Men's Group Web site

I am one of seven men that have been meeting every other week for almost 20 years. We have recently created a web site that describes our group, and also includes contributions from the women in our lives, describing how they view our group. I would like feedback if this site is appropriate for adding to the list of external sites here, or if there are other better places to include it. The site can be found here [1] --Aludwig12 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is not an appropriate addition based on WP:Notability and WP:RS. Rorybowman (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. --Aludwig12 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ideologies of the Men's Movement" Master's Thesis

My master's thesis was on the "Ideologies of the Men's Movement" and offers a more precise overview of the various branches of the men's movement than exists in the current description. The system administrators rejected my effort to edit the page to include this framework.

The thesis is archived at the University of Missouri library as follows:

Author Williams, Larry S. Title Ideologies of the mens movement / by Larry S. Williams. Published 1989.

 Persistent record link: http://laurel.lso.missouri.edu/record=b2259020&searchscope=0

LOCATION CALL # STATUS

 MU DEPOSITORY 	 HM51.X1989 W55       	  NOT CHECKD OUT

Description vii, 102 leaves ; 28 cm. Note Typescript. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1989. Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-102). Subjects Men's studies. Feminism. Dissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Sociology. OCLC # 21920674 LC # lum90024975

It is also available on microform:

Author Williams, Larry S. Title Ideologies of the mens movement [microform] / by Larry S. Williams. Published 1989.

 Persistent record link: http://laurel.lso.missouri.edu/record=b2259019&searchscope=0

LOCATION CALL # STATUS

 MU ELLIS SPEC FILM 	 FILM BOOK 0001 1989 -161       	  LIB USE ONLY

Description vii, 102 leaves ; 28 cm. Note Typescript. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1989. Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-102). Format Microfilm. Columbia, Mo. : University of Missouri-Columbia, 1990. Part of 1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm. Subjects Men's studies. Feminism. Dissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Sociology. OCLC # 21920687 LC # lum90024974

Link to the thesis can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/~sir.will.williams/site/

In addition to the thesis, I co-wrote a paper with Professor Clarence Y.H. Lo that was presented at the 1991 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. This thesis began to utilize the theoretical perspective of Frames Analysis in social movements.

Either or both of these may assist in re-drafting the currently un-sourced overview of the men's movement.

I'm new to this talk feature, so please help me with protocol.

Larryswilliams (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Larry S Williams

POV?

(such as male depression, the fact men commit suicide approximately 4 times more often than women (although women outnumber men approximately 3-1 in suicide attempts, women's suicide attempts are less lethal)...)

These internal parentheses are not only poor form, but ring of a point-counterpoint POV style. I don't debate these points, but a) sources should be added for both, and they should be refactorred in a less argumentative style. Perhaps this can go into a criticisms section... —Memotype::T 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pick-up and the seduction community

I can't find a single mention of the so called "seduction community" on this page. Am I not correct in thinking that should be remedied? Many people in that movement are now even calling it a "men's movement". If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check out Neil Strauss's "The Game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyblob (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Dnavarro (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Articles?

Shouldn't this be partitioned into two articles- one for the antifeminist male backlash movement, and another for anti-sexist/pro-feminist men's groups?

Calibanu (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Anti-feminists are also the ones who are anti-sexist. This article is on them. Sexist pro-feminists should probably be addressed on a separate article called pro-feminism Wwmargera (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wild at Heart - John Eldredge

First time user noticed that a prominent author by the name of John Eldredge whose works could definetly be under the mythopoetic section was not listed or mentioned. He wrote a book by the name of Wild at Heart (great book by the way) and it is Christian, but by no means under any kind of "denominational" label. It has sold over 2 million copies as of a few years ago, and Robert Bly is quoted extensively within it as well as many other prominent authors who fall into the Mythopeic category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.90.126 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically Anti-Male

It really should be pointed out that the Men's Movement of the 1980's and 90's was not just Pro-Feminist. It was also decidedly Anti-Male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.182.4 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comment reflects a difficulty in making a distinction between the "male role" and the male human being (boxed in by that role). The Men's Movement is/was not "anti-male," but "anti-male role." I empathize with the challenge in communicating/understanding the difference between the two -- especially with words. Men who are identified with the "male role" will interpret criticism of it to be "anti-male."

It may be easier to make the distinction by saying that if the man is experiencing feelings of, for example, isolation, rage, self hatred, sex addiction, fear etc -- then he is trapped withing the male role. If he is in touch with the deeper experience of, again for example, his connectedness to others and nature, peace, authentic love, his body etc -- then he is more in touch with his inherent human goodness -- his humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymoco (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rich Zubaty is Not Notable

Please review this list of discussions for an extensive explanation as to why Rich Zubaty is not considered a notable author and should not be listed as such in Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rich Zubaty's books are selling well. There is an institutional bias against Mr. Zubaty. The entry of articles relating to him and his work was discussed at length by myself, Mr. Zubaty and a small number of editors who rejected clear criteria for his notability. So I moved the article to my own private user area pending further evidence of Mr. Zubaty's notability. But even this was deleted, because I had to hurry up producing the evidence. Lew Loot (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the situation has changed since the last round of discussion, please feel free to open the discussion again. An RfC might be a good place to start. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Men's liberation" section POV issue

The Men's movement#Men's liberation section is written very negatively and with an obvious gender feminism slant. It's clear that no one sympathetic to men's liberation has had any input there. This section has serious WP:NPOV problems as a result. I actually agree with what it says, but it's blatantly unencyclopedic to write something this totally oppositional here. (There are plenty of politicians I think are moronic, dangerous jackasses, but I'm not allowed to push that point of view in articles about them here, by way of comparison.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy relating to child support

Under Men's_movement#Advocacy (distinguished the subsection) I am wondering if this list is extensive enough. For example, I see a commonly written about concern with men's inability to abandon a pregnancy, something which females have agency to do due to exclusive rights to abortion, adoption and abandonment choices. Ideas like both parents (and not just women via consenting to keep pregnancy) having to opt-in to have to support. Shouldn't advocacy regarding child support and procreation consent fairness also be included? Ranze (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

The "Men's and fathers' rights movements" section has been tagged as unsourced since July 2010. I removed the unsourced claims and replaced them with content from the MRM and FRM articles. Feel free to expand the section with more references. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of Weasel Words.

RE: "Sociologists Michael Messner and Michael Flood have argued that the term "movement" is problematic..."

The use of the unqualified term 'sociologist' infers an arms length and expert commentary. Michael Messner and Michael Flood are undeniably from a particular school of thought, in particular they are pro-feminists. Without further qualification the term 'sociologist' becomes a Weasel word. To quote WP:WEASEL, "[it] may disguise a biased view.". Messner, Flood and Kimmel are pro-feminists and where appropriate this should be mentioned. CSDarrow (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you somehow suggesting that to be "pro-feminist" is to have a prejudice against MRM? Gee. it certainly can be shown that the other way seems to be accurate enough, but I'm not sure that the above statement is true. Perhaps you could start a list of academics who have no personal views about anything at all and then we could draw all our references from that list? Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It must be a joke to suggest that "sociologists" is a weasel word but "profeminist sociologists" isn't. Please do not quote out of context: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions says that "They [unsupported attributions] may disguise a biased view". Surely you see that the statements are attributed to Messner and Kimmel and that citing Wikipedia:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions as a reason for your edits doesn't make any sense. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I am not in the habit of joking and secondly I should inform you it is customary to actually read a post before you respond to it. If by chance you did read it, then it seems you are incapable of seeing that a sociologist from a diametrically opposed school of thought might be commenting from a 'biased' point of view. At present the entry is misleading the reader as it disguises a biased view, see WP:WEASEL. If you disagree then got to WP:DRN. If Academia, Schools of Thought and Bias are outside of your experience, then please move onto less weighty Wikipedia entries.

CSDarrow (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And I think, no, better make that "feel", that it is only you and your red linked buddies who insist that feminism and the MRM are " diametrically opposed school(s) of thought." Get a grip, get a life, get laid, get whatever you need to pop your eyes open. I once discovered a note written in a book (pub. ca, 1925) that said, "The writer of this book was either an old man whose mind closed years ago or a young man whose mind never opened." I'm beginning to fear that i know which you are. And then we get pointed to an article, Schools of Thought that is being looked at as being "Not notable" and is completely unsourced. Rather revealing, would you not say, if that's the best you can do? Carptrash (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then Carptrash you will be invited to participate in the DRN discussion. I am sure you will have much of worth to contribute to it. CSDarrow (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove parts of your comments after other editors addressed them. No, WP:WEASEL and Wikipedia:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions, i.e. the subsection where the "may disguise a biased view" part is mentioned, does not apply here because the statement is attributed to Messner and Flood and because "sociologists" is in no more a weasel word than "profeminist sociologist". If you think that someone is "biased" as you suggest that Messner and Flood are, then you can attribute the POV per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is a moot point because the opinions are attributed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If they were merely sociologists I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be a weasel/misleading word. Their expertise might well be of note, just as a physicist's opinion on the cosmos might be. However they are profeminist sociologists and are commenting on a movement of which they are members, they are in strong philosophical disagreement with certain elements of that movement. A sociologist's opinion on the Democratic Party would be of interest, but my evaluation of that opinion would be colored very differently if I was to learn that sociologist was also a Republican Senator with strong anti-Liberal views. There is nothing wrong with being profeminist, diversity of opinion is important, especially on Wikipedia. However to accurately represent their views it should be either "profeminist" or "profeminist sociologists". Else the reader is being misled. CSDarrow (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

William L. Shirer did not think much of the Nazis, does that mean we have to call him an anti-Nazi journalist every thime we reference Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? And so it goes, over and over. A source is either usable or not. The idea of adding qualifiers and editor's opinions of what writers (etc) might or might not believe is (opinion) absurd. Carptrash (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting peoples time. CSDarrow (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not much of an answer. And how much of other editor's time have you wasted here with your . . . . . .....stuff? Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Michael Messner and Michael Flood being pro-feminist would make them biased about the use of the word movement. Since they are part of the movement (as pro-feminist men), I guess one could argue that they would be biased towards the term, but in fact they seem to be arguing against the term, so I don't really see how there is a bias at work here. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be the phrase "..consists of members of what they argue is a privileged group.". I have no problem with the word 'movement'. CSDarrow (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So you don't view males, especially white ones (the backbone of the movement in the USA) to be a "privileged group"? Or you do but you just don't want everyone else to know? Here is another secret Everyone else already knows it. Carptrash (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Go and tell these men they are privileged. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] CSDarrow (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that most if not all of those men/boys are/were where they are/were to help keep even more privileged men where they are. And for every picture you drag out there are pictures of women in just as bad or worse circumstances. A lot of these guys were soldiers. I seem to recognize some Bataan Death March survivors. Who was it that got them in those positions? Men who were even more privileged than them, mostly. Carptrash (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No you state Men are privileged, it is the MRM who is trying to do something for these men. You can obviously read, write and have a computer; as such you are one of the most privileged people on this planet. Many of these men gave their lives and worked under appalling conditions to give you that privilege. You may not care about these men but others do. A less trusting person than myself might consider you gender a bigot. Stop trying to derail this thread and go else where. CSDarrow (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"as such you are one of the most privileged people on this planet." This is not news to me since I am a white male. The men you showed can only be free when every person in the world is free. Soldiers in Nam were not fighting to keep me free. Soldiers in the Philippines were not fighting to keep me free. They were, in both cases, there to oppress the locals who wanted to be free. Sure. drag out more sad pictures, but do try and understand the stories behind them. Carptrash (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I find your dismissive and disrespectful attitude to these issues distasteful. Go elsewhere. CSDarrow (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And what have you done to earn respect? What does your beloved movement plan to do to improve the lot of the soldier? and the miner? and the homeless? You introduced those men via your pictures. What are your plans for them? If I am dismissive it is because you have yet to offer anything of value, anything worth retaining. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, it is your opinion that Messner and Flood are "biased". Even we play along and assume (against all logic) that they are biased, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply. The statement in the article is attributed to Messner and Flood so it's been taken care of and you can stop beleaguering a moot point.

Try your appeal to emotion on editors who are unfamiliar with the strands of the men's movement and don't know that it was the profeminist men's movement, not the men's rights movement, that participated in the civil rights, the student, gay rights, and antiwar movements. Or, better yet, stop with the pictures of dying soldiers and barely veiled insults that editors are "bigots" and start editing constructively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My 'opinion' of Messner and Flood is not an opinion it is fact, and as such is incapable of being biased. The rest of your post is extraordinary by even your standards. CSDarrow (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"is not an opinion it is fact, and as such is incapable of being biased. " It seems to me that this is a pretty good summation of the MRM's view about themselves in general and probably would make a pretty good addition to the lede. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact being that Flood and Messner are profeminists. This is an argument of fact not opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Already, I think everyone could be a bit more civil here. Secondly, I think the issue is one of WP:UNDUE - e.g. yes, Flood makes the word movement a problematique, but we haven't put any thing else in to counter balance this critique - for example, the fact that he nonetheless titles his article Men's movement, or the fact that there are umpteen articles and books and so on that use this same formulation. So to be fair here, we should balance the critique with stats on actual usage, or other scholars who just call it a movement and move on with their lives.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile I eagerly await Clarance's "facts" about what the MRM is doing for soldiers. miners and the poor. Make that "poor men." Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, just a side note - you have made it clear that you don't like the people affiliated with this movement (e.g. "sniveling wimps"). As such, you should seriously consider recusing yourself from making future edits in article space here per our neutrality guidelines Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. I'm not at all convinced that you can contribute to this article in a neutral fashion given your publicly expressed views on the topic and subjects of these articles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, if we go by your logic, all participants in this discussion would have to recuse themselves. You yourself have expressed some rather strong views on one strand of the larger men's movement. Multiple editors disagreed with your belief that the men's rights movement article should reflect that "discrimination against men is real" and that the men's rights movement does anything to redress discrimination based on ethnicity and sexual orientation. Please be more careful before declaring someone "biased" and advising them to recuse themselves, especially when you are involved. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is quite different - my perception there is based on multiple, documented sources and books written about discrimination faced by men. Now whether that discrimination is noted or still listed as "perceived" b/c Men's rights movement is now about a movement and not about Men's rights (as it used to be) is a content issue. I am still neutral on the topic overall, I am certainly not a fanboy of the movement and you won't find me haunting their forums, but I also don't subscribe to the SPLC view of the movement - I think any articles we write about these people should walk a fine line and remain NPOV. I came into this because I saw that the lede was non-neutrally formulated in my view. That is quite different from an editor calling the subjects of an article "sniveling wimps". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi, for your concern and words of wisdom. It’s really okay, I just have to remember to NOT come here to edit after leaving a men’s website where, “Someone outta rape the cunt” is offered as a way of dealing with gender issues. I’m sure that I can remember to not do that now that you have pointed out the error of my ways. In any case my actual editing in the article (as opposed to on the talk page) has pretty much been limited to tracking down sources and then removing content that is referenced to that source when it appears that for some unexplained reason the editor seems to have completely missed the point of what was written. Or, as A.S. Byatt said about the Hollywood version of one of her books, “They just used the parts that I didn’t write.” I look forward to your contributions. Perhaps you can help Darrow out by explaining to us what the MRM is going to do for soldiers, miners and poor men because there is a lot that needs to be done for them. Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not - so I'm going to assume not. And yes, if you've just been reading some vile blog, coming here right after to edit is probably not a good idea. Turn it around -suppose I was reading another vile blog, and then showed up here immediately after to rampage against the Feminism article to correct all of the supposed "inaccuracies" and "POVs" in that one? Listen, we all have opinions - I doubt many of those editing articles on Ku Klux Klan are sitting on the fence - but in order to write a good, neutral, encyclopedic article, we have to nonetheless try to check our POV at the door - and I've just seen several comments by you in talk here and elsewhere that put your heart on your sleeve, as it were - which suggests that you might be a little to close and a little too irritated by these fellows. Saying things like "Soldiers in the Philippines were not fighting to keep me free." is an offensive lashing out of the worst kind - especially given that probably tens of thousands of American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Filipino citizens, were killed during that terrible conflict.

Re: being too close, a similar thing happened recently with a user who was mixed up in the Qworty episode (having been trolled/harassed by same) - he was mad as hell and ready to bring down fire and brimstone on the bio article, but other editors cautioned him to avoid editing for exactly this reason - being too close and feeling something too personally is itself a (mild) form of COI. It's not wrong to feel strongly about anything, but it makes it hard to see, from your own perspective, when those feelings have influenced your own logic and lead to Cognitive bias and esp Confirmation bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. Obiwankenobi, above you say: "yes, Flood makes the word movement a problematique, but we haven't put any thing else in to counter balance this critique"and "So to be fair here, we should balance the critique with stats on actual usage, or other scholars who just call it a movement and move on with their lives". What you have said here suggests some misunderstandings about the NPOV policy. There is only a need to counter balance critiques if there are reliable secondary sources making those points. As NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" Do you have any reliable sources to propose? If there aren't reliable sources making some "counter balancing" comments, then there is nothing to include. We absolutely do not collect stats on actual usage etc to counterbalance points- this would be a classic example of original research. Slp1 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry, what I meant was, how many sources that discuss the men's movement problematize the word "movement"? If 99 sources just call it the men's movement and then discuss, and only 1 says "well, I don't like the word "movement"', then we have a WP:UNDUE problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could be undue in some circumstances, but it is still a kind of original research. One of the issues that led to problems with the Shakespeare authorship question article is that only a few highly quality sources say explicitly "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" (even though it is clearly the mainstream view) whereas lots of fringe theorists publish their theories widely. They never got discounted because most scholars didn't want to waste their time refuting what they considered rubbish. So counts of this sort would be original research and misrepresent the mainstream view to boot.

Having said that, you would have a point if the article said in WP's voice that "The term "movement" is problematic because...". That might be inappropriate because it's true many scholarly articles discuss the movement without making this point. But that's not the text we are discussing here. The current text clearly attributes the viewpoint to some very prominent scholars in the area. Per WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". We don't know what the majority view is, because only a few talk about this topic, but it is at the very least a significant minority view and worth an (attributed) sentence here. If there are other scholarly viewpoints published on this issue, then they can be added too. It would be great to find themSlp1 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To repeat the original intent of this section. The use of the unqualified term 'sociologist' infers an arms length and expert commentary. Michael Messner and Michael Flood are undeniably from a particular school of thought, in particular they are pro-feminists. Without further qualification the term 'sociologist' misleads the reader, it's that simple. CSDarrow (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

SPLC commentary

The Southern Poverty Law Center's, (SPLC), Intelligence Reports have been declared a reliable sources for Wikipedia, so I have been repeated informed. These Intelligence reports have been used by law enforcement and cited by academics. Their commentary on the Men Movement includes, [10]

• The men’s movement also 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.

• The common denominator is their resentment of feminism and of females in general.

• Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women.

It is not for us to second guess sources but merely record what they say. Clearly this material is significant investigative work and should be included in the page.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I also found this "While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many." - but often the second part is quoted, but not the first - e.g. that some of these websites may document legitimate complaints. However, I fear the addition of this section above is a bit pointy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What is more important in this context is that Goldwag wrote about the men's rights movement and to some extent the fathers' rights movement, not the men's movement as a whole including the profeminist and mythopoetic men's movement. The SPLC commentary belongs in the mrm article, not here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

mensactivism.org in External Links.

Binkersnet: MANN: Men's Activist News Network is a news aggregation site for Men's Right sites. I can't think of a better entry for this section. It's Mission statement [11] clearly is not that of a hate site by any reasonable definition.

The SPLC also says that the Fathers Rights and Men's Rights movement are the same movements, they aren't terribly well informed on these issues. It has also been roundly criticized for the way it categorizes Hate Sites and Movements by some very credible sources. But more importantly there is no mention that news.mensactivism.org is a hate site. They do criticize them for criticizing “the myth that women are less violent than men.”. This 'myth' has also been challenged by some academics and other very credible sources, eg Straus. In short their opinion is well within the realm of reasonable disagreement.

I have never found burden of proof switching arguments convincing, so please don't try them on me. Before you revert again please answer with more substance than you've managed before.

CSDarrow (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women. The attention I pay to men's rights is the minimal amount required to keep track of bias in this article. More than that I could not care less. When I looked up the domain mensactivism.org I noticed right away that the SPLC says they publish falsehoods about female-initiated domestic violence. Why would Wikipedia ever want to host a link which purposely gives out false information? Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As the WP:Burden remains unanswered , the external link to mensactivism.org will continue to be kept from the article. There is no special privilege that this or that organization has to a link hosted on Wikipedia, no "right" to a link pointing at their website. I think we need to protect the reader from false information, from fringe positions puffed up to falsely represent the conclusions of mainstream research. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your response is horrific. CSDarrow (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My evaluation of the situation at present is as follows

The "Men's Movement" is an umbrella term for a broad group of organizations, with some of the organizations being are at ideological odds with others. The Men's Rights Movement is within this umbrella term. The External Links Section of the Men's Movement page links readers to further information. The site Men's Activist News Network was representing the Men's Rights Movement within this list and is a news aggregation site. Atm there is no link representing the Men's Rights Movement

This site has been continuously removed from this list, in particular by Binksternet. The reasoning being atm "that the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) says they publish falsehoods about female-initiated domestic violence". see Here. In particular the SPLC says the site asserts that:- 'women attack men just as much as men attack women', which they claim is a falsehood.

I would make the following points:-

• The view that men and women equally initiate domestic violence is a contentious issue, with credible people on both sides of the debate. Differing views here are within the realm of reasonable disagreement. Examples of support are Sociologist Murray Straus [12] [13] and numerous papers in the Journal of Partner Abuse, (pub by Springer). [14]

• The site Men's Activist News Network by any measure is a reasonable site as is evidenced by the page outlining its philosophy [15].

• The SPLC does not have especial expertise in Gender Issues and should not dictate to Wikipedia what is true or proper.

• There is not a general policy that a link on Wikepedia must have verifiably true information.

• Due to Men's Activist News Network's broad and reasonable coverage of Men's Rights issues it seems a particularly appropriate link for this section.

As such I feel the site Men's Activist News Network should not be removed from this the External Links Section

Given the above, I would consider the next removal of Men's Activist News Network from the External Links list as declaring an impasse, and I will take the above argument to DRN. People will be expected to explain themselves there.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason we're still linking Men's News Daily? I know it used to be an active MRM site, but now it's just a conservative-themed "citizen journalism" site with ads. I can't find a single article on there related to anything about gender, MRM, or feminism. They must have kicked all the MRM folks out. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never understood why it is there. CSDarrow (talk)

I am removing Men's News Daily.

I am also removing Mensactivism.org because of WP:ELNO where it says we should not link to "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material..." The news items carried by Mensactivism.org include ones that give false information about female-initiated domestic violence, per SPLC. That is authoritative enough for me, more so than arguing the "facts" with another editor. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is the ultimate arbiter of the truth -- Binksternet? The SPLC? I think not. As CSDarrow noted above, there is serious scholarly/academic debate about these issues (see the references he posted above, as well as this recent study from Germany which found that in relationships women are more likely than their partners commit violence than men.) Memills (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One scholar bucking the mainstream does not make for "serious" academic debate. Instead, this indicates a minor viewpoint which is accorded the proper weight in the article, relative to mainstream sources. Very little should be made of the one scholar who found against the mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of both links. Neither EL improves a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject. They are organizations which provide specific examples of the movement, which are not appropriate ELs in a general article such as this. ThemFromSpace 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MensActivism.org is an information source, not an organization. Given the above, I see no reason not to include it -- it is where interested folks might go to find more information related to issues of concern to the MRM -- the very purpose of this subsection. There is no requirement that *all* of the information presented at any particular external source is ultimately found to be accurate, particularly when there is serious scholarly debate about the issue(s). Memills (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's best to only link directly to pages which inprove a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject in a way that can't be done through regular editing. Examples of good ELs are websites which host their own copyrighted photos that capture an aspect of the article we can't show in our own photos, pages with lots of statistics that are unwieldy in an article, and lengthy essays or news articles which aid the reader's understanding. Official websites are almost always ok to link to. It is usually not ok to link to homepages of large sites such as mensactivism.org unless the article is about that webpage or the organization behind it. If there is a specific page within the mensactivism that contains encyclopedic information we can link there, but there is no benefit in linking to the homepage. ThemFromSpace 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gay Liberation?

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 129.78.233.212 (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

SPLC material.

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, [16] and here [17]. 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. 76.189.109.155 (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? --76.189.109.155 (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 http://vivalamanosphere.com/, 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 - http://www.returnofkings.com/about - as I've read his blog before, he's a pickup artist, cheesy sort, but whatever. But he hosts posts like this [18], 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. :) --76.189.109.155 (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. --76.189.109.155 (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[19]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? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month. --76.189.109.155 (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)