Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

This Is So True...

Rant about the unfairness of life. Nothing actionable; no suggestions for the article. Closing discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you plan on editing this article, and others like it, from any perspective other than pro-feminist it is inevitable that you will be blocked/banned. Don't take it personal. Wikipedia is a notoriously bad source for information on sex/gender issues due to the entrenched feminist bias amongst admins (many of whom can be found editing this article.) The article is on, seemingly indefinite, probation, but a careful analysis of the history of who is sanctioned will show that it's only the editors who question the POV pushing of the feminist task force that polices the article. This article, and others like it, are just parodies of the topics they ostensibly represent. I come by to take a look at it every once in a while for a laugh and think about the self-righteous ideologues and gender warriors who use it to push their version of "the truth" The above is a paragraph from the talkpage of the user Memills written by user Cybermud which I just read. My question is why are users pretending to be objective here when clearly they are censoring legitimate information from being added to certain articles, then attacking that person saying something like "you violated WP policy" or "you violated WP:NOR". Also why are there so many misandrist feminist users on Wikipedia that like to censor the truth regarding men's rights issues? These people are sexist ***** and it is a shame there is such censorship and dishonest propaganda present on Wikipedia. Enjois (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Could define "misandrist feminist users" for me, please.Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I'm a man and I'm quite happy with being a man. I have a great sympathy for men's rights issues for personal reasons related to a child custody battle against my spiteful ex-wife, but at root I am a feminist through and through. As such, I consider myself as a fence-straddler on men's rights issues—I can see both sides. Primarily, though, I am a Wikipedia editor, and a stickler for proper encyclopedia style. That is why I have continually removed original research and synthesis, and why I intend to continue doing so. Appeals to shame and sexism roll off of me as water off a duck's back. The way forward is for topic-interested editors to find books written on the subject of the men's rights movement and to draw from those sources to expand the article. No more synthesis, please, with citations to studies about domestic abuse or criminal justice or whatever. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "I am pretty sure that most of the editors here, both side of the argument, are men. I am. Here is one definition I found. : It’s a modern, made-up word that makes you look stupid. so stop using it. “misandry” is a word that doesnt represent any real thing, a kind of a placeholder in our consciousness for an experience that does not, and indeed cannot, exist. so why have i been accused of perpetrating it about a million times in the last month? i have come to see the word “misandry” as a euphemism for feminism, and “misandrist” as a euphemism for feminist, rather than anything that actually exists in real life, to any troubling degree, or in any meaningful way. while anti-feminists and misogynists bandy the terms about with glee, in reality, it’s just another flaccid jab at feminism, and feminists, by privileged men whose perverse denial of reality leads them to believe (or pretend to believe) that they are on the receiving end of institutional sexism as much as they benefit from it. and that they suffer relational abuse just as frequently as they dish it out. Carptrash (talk) Carptrash just exposed him/herself, and also the issue at hand - Wikipedia has a problem when it comes to gender-related issues. This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, along with other reasonable editors here. There is unfortunately rampant anti-male bias on Wikipedia and sexist feminist users such as Carptrash (who just exposed themselves based on the above "essay") are running the show and censoring other users from balancing out Wikipedia articles into a more objective online encyclopedia. Enjois (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) "that they are on the receiving end of institutional sexism as much as they benefit from it. and that they suffer relational abuse just as frequently as they dish it out". This is pure nonsense. Sexism against men in 2013 is more institutionalized and omnipresent than sexism against women. 40, 50 years ago the reverse was certainly true but things have changed greatly since then, however many clueless blind people (unfortunately many of them are here) do not see this reality. You mentioned relationship abuse, are you aware that up to 35% of DV victims are male and yet DV is thought of as a "women's issue". That is just one example of the invisble sexism that men today face and nobody talks about. Enjois (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yet another place guys get screwed. A woman (such as myself?) "exposes" herself and it's cool. A guy exposes himself and he'll get tossed in jail. PS That "essay" was not mine. The footnote just didn't work.Carptrash (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Please pull this conversation back on topic per talk page guidelines or I will delete it. You must be discussing ways to improve the article, not ranting about injustice in the world. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Enjois, this is not the place to be righting great wrongs. This encyclopedia is for reporting the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. Reyk YO! 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Fine. This encyclopedia is not for reporting the world as it is, it is the place to report the world as it can be referenced and sourced by reliable references and sources. Carptrash (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yep. However, the point that Enjois and Cybermud are making re the bias in this article is valid. This article is written primarily from a feminist, anti-MRM POV. A look at the references used throughout the article is astonishing: the majority are from feminist / women's studies publications written by self-identified feminists who are strongly anti-MRM. Some apparently believe that acknowledging men's issues will diminish the validity or importance of women's issues, when, of course, both sexes have unique problems that deserve attention. When new pro-MRM sources are introduced, the new content is often rapidly reverted -- using a tiresome litany of justifications re putative violation of WP policies which may, or may not, have merit. Most of the editors here share an anti-MRM perspective (some overtly acknowledged), and, pro-MRM folks are often attacked on the Talk page, or, quickly put on probation. Certain editors have tag-teamed -- one way to arrive at a "consensus." These problems are not unique to this article, but are general concerns about some controversial WP articles (see Criticisms of Wikipedia and this review). Enjois and Cybermud are just shining some needed light to illuminate the elephant in the room. Memills (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ...omg. The Criticisms of Wikipedia article is gone -- it was just now changed to redirect to Wikipedia, right after I saved my post above. There is no Criticisms of Wikipedia page anymore. What will they delete next? See? What did I just tell you? ...the sisterhood is powerful. ;-) Memills (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC) ...Criticism of Wikipedia. It's not deleted. You typed the link wrong. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, powerful and sexist (almost all feminists are actually sexists when you look just a little bit). Memills where can I view the deleted "criticisms of wikipedia" article? Is there a cache of it or something, and why was it deleted? Get back to me, Thanks : ) Enjois (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Enjois, get off this ridiculous soapbox please. This isn't a blog or a MySpace page, and if you can make such silly claims after looking "just a little bit", maybe you should look just a bit more. I'm not going to take administrative action here myself, but I am not going to oppose administrative (or simply editorial) action including hatting and removing comments and threads or warning editors that their soapboxing is seriously disruptive. Thank you, Kevin, for bringing this up on the board. Also, I have a very nice penis that I'm reasonably happy with, and so far it's been used only on women. And I'm a feminist! And I don't hate men, at least not for being men. So I'm either the "almost" in Enjois "almost all feminists", or that statement was hog wash. It certainly is utterly unhelpful. FWIW, I think Kevin Gorman also has a penis, though I can't vouch for what he does with it or whether he's a man hater as suggested by Enjois. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Forgot to mention this yesterday here, which I probably should have, but, FYI: I've posted about recent posts on this page on WP:ANI, asking for uninvolved admins to step in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation

I suggest that Male genital mutilation is added to the list of Issues, not really sure how to go about referencing it etc but yeah 121.99.65.54 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that talks about it in relation to the Men's rights movement. Then look at how someone else has referenced something a copy the format. Carptrash (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This Article Is Problematic Because It Fails NPOV

"...Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources..."

This article fails NPOV because it does not represent fairly, proportionally and without bias. This appears to be a feminist article.

Where are the citations to Men's Rights academics, including William Farrell; Lionel Tiger, Gordon Finley, PhD, David Benatar, ect.?

I suggest that this article include fair, proportiate works of relevant and suitable scholars. Does anyone have any objection to edits of this page to include a wider prospective, consistent with attendant wikipedia protocols?

I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has been in need of scholarly sources from the beginning. They cannot be added fast enough, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that scholarly sources are at a premium. However, I have a couple of questions. Do you have any sources to suggest that Lionel Tiger, Gordon Finley and David Benatar identify with the concept of men's rights and the men's rights movement per se? I don't know about the others, but from what I've seen in his book and articles Benatar clearly disassociates his ideas from those of the MR movement. He approves of feminist principles for one and doesn't frame his material in terms of rights at all. On the other hand, Warren Farrell (not William) is certainly good source for the men's rights movement. He isn't an academic however: he hasn't been employed by an educational establishment for years and years. Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All good points. To tell the truth, I am not in a position to have an academic argument about the sources I used as examples. I would be ambivalent to any requirement that an academic or scholar be members of the subject of their research. Certainly one can be an expert on African fauna without having to be fauna themselves. By way of example, noone is going to argue that Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood, or Messinger are Men's Rights Activists, or proponents of the Men's Rights Movement. Yet, this article is pretty much based upon their work. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, is a scholarly expert on African fauna going to be counted as an expert on men's rights just because he chooses to write on the topic, and he has a degree in some other field? No, he is not. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your statement. Is it the degree in some specific academic catagory that determines expertise? Without said credential one cannot be an expert in a subject of study? Or are you stating that without a degree in "Men's Rights," one cannot be an expert or an authority? Certainly, many of the pro-feminst authorities that base much of this article don't have degrees in "Men's Rights." Published, peer reviewed scholarship and/or any authority recognized by wikipedia as a reliable source is acceptable. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If a political scientist, sociologist or anthropologist comments on men's rights then I'm sure we can all agree that this the word of a topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're going off on a tangent Binksternet - Vicioustwist is correct: peer reviewed scholarship, no matter a person's primary degree (because if it was good enough for a reliable source it IS good enough for wikipedia), is all that matters. However SLP1 has asked the pertinent question: are Benatar, Tiger and Finley linked to Men's rights by other reliable sources?--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that we have all been talking past each other a bit here; part of this is my fault for not being clear in my first post. Vicioustwist, I didn't mean to imply that academics cited here need to men's rights activists or have degrees in "men's rights". This is an article about the men's rights movement; that means we can and should include material written about the movement by scholars. It doesn't matter what their academic or philosophical (feminist or not) background is; as an encyclopedia we have to fairly represent their published views. (see WP:NPOV for more details. Other good independent sources are newspaper articles, books etc once again, once again on the topic of the MRM. There other possible source for this article: prominent members of the men's rights movement itself. These people don't need to be academics at all, but they do clearly need to be identified (ideally by themselves) as part of the movement, per WP:BLP concerns amongst other things. That's why Farrell was a good suggestion: he isn't an academic, but he does clearly identify as part of the movement and is a prominent spokesperson for the MRM. (BTW, he is actually already cited in the article). On the other hand Benatar doesn't write about the men's rights movement or indeed frame his writings in terms of men's rights issues; and he doesn't apparently identify as a member of the movement. In fact, when he does briefly mention the MR movement in his writings he is generally quite negative about them. People reviewing the book have noticed this (links available given above).

The problem with this article is that editors regularly come here and make one of two claims:

• "this important issue, [insert a favourite issue], is a men's rights issue," without any reliable sources saying that anybody other than the editor thinks that it is. In other words, no direct link to the men's rights movement is made in any sources is provided.
• "we should include material by this important writer [insert name here] who writes about men's rights"; but no reliable sources are provided saying that anybody other than the editor thinks that s/he does write about men's rights per se or is a member of the MR movement.

That's why before we consider your suggestions about Tiger or Finley we need to have some more details backed up with reliable sources; do they write about the "men's rights movement" or "men's rights"? Or do they identify as a men's rights activist or a member of the movement? These linkages need to made directly in reliable sources. Slp1 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is I who is confused to some extent. Although I mentioned Tiger and company, I was using them just as examples, and may they not be appropriate for inclusion. I now see that there has been some history of "edit warring" going on regarding this page and see that there backdrop of controversy about editing this page. I am going to hold off for the time being adding or editing this page, because I don't want to exacerbate tensions, if they do in fact exist, and would like some consensus. I'd rather be a thistle in a hedge that a rose in your grace. (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Academic opinion

I am going to suggest that the entire line be removed and transferred here to the talkpage along with the several sources for the time being. All the sources must be gone through painstakingly to find where this information is coming from and that is a lot of reading. Right now I believe the statement to be synthesis and OR placed there with mutliple academic sources as the only basis for the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. I'm sorry, but I am moved to strong language. This is hogwash. The fact that there are "mutliple academic sources" is the exact reason why the information needs to stay. Please see WP:V, WP:IRS. I can't imagine what better sources you are thinking of of, but academic sources are as good as they get. --Slp1 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe a claim can be made without a source to back it up. This sounds like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, I'm afraid. The claim is that academics critique the men's rights movement for their use of the research. This is supported by numerous citations. The claim is made and the sourced back it up. There is no rabbit and no hat. This is how we write this encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. (and if there really is a reference then please show it) We only make claims that are backed up by a reliable source that actually makes such a claim unless it is unquestionable like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Just because many academics have an opinion of this kinda obscure subject does not mean it is unquestionable. We still require a source that states this as a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see above. You have a misunderstanding of how we summarize information per NPOV Slp1 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet, even as an admin you can't seem to actually show the policy that allows the sythesis of information in this manner. It is easy to make such accusations Slp. Watch: You don't have an understanding of how refencing works on Wikipedia. See how easy that was. Now....why don't you show the exact policies and guidelines that support your opinion. So again, I am suggesting that we move the disputed information to the talkpage to discuss until the references are verified and can be shown one way or the other. Anyway....good night. No action will be taken until a consensus is reached. If no consensus is determined to move the information it shall remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Slp on this issue 100%. I view this statement as encyclopedic summation, and don't see how it could be covered by WP:NOR. I would suggest that WP:NOR/N may be a good place to recruit additional opinions if you really do believe this is somehow an original research issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin for your added input, however as Wikipedia:No original research states: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

However, each critical academic source advances the same position. We can certainly say multiple scholars agree or disagree with a position, as an encyclopedic summary of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As Binkster says, each critical academic source advances the same position. The sentence contains absolutely no "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. The sources are simply being placed in a group and a claim being made about all of them not advanced by the sources themselves - that academics hold this opinion of actavists. That is the synthesis.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point out where exactly the claim is made the 'academics hold this opinion of actavists{sic}'? Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Academics criticize the research cited by activists, and while acknowledging that men are victims of domestic violence, dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical". The bolded part is the synthesis not supported by the sources if all that is happening is that a group of academic sources are gathered and this claim is made without an actual reference stating this as a fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: I actually misread your last post a little bit, which was why my last post sounded weird. I was about to self revert when you posted.

However, given that that statement is supported by five citations where academics are criticizing the research cited by activists, where is the inappropriate synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources? The sources are all written by academics, and are all criticizing the research cited by activists. So, even though I did misread your last post, I still don't understand where you're seeing synthesis. We could name each academic individually, but that would be unnecessarily lengthy - it's much better to sum up the massive collection of academics who specifically criticize the research the activists cite (and criticize the activists for citing the research) as "Academics criticize the research cited by activists," instead of naming each one. It's summation, not synthesis. Are you thinking the label 'academics' itself is somehow synthetic? They're all objectively academics, and that wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:SYNTH anyway.

Perhaps someone at WP:NOR/N could better appreciate whatever argument you're trying to make and could bring some fresh eyes to this discussion? Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is there regardless, but I am not about to chase this to a noticeboard. I can accept the consensus of the editors even if I completely disagree. This is a collaboration. I really can't believe that editors don't understand this very basic policy, but we may just ignore it if it keeps the peace. Although if other editors begin to move towards this please count me as supporting a re-write that does not contain this language. I have the page watch listed. If this becomes a dispute that others weigh in on perhaps an RFC or another option would be better for now, but if you wish to make mention of this at WP:NOR/N I won't object. I'll watchlist that one as well (that is one I have not listed and should anyway).--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is, that could just read:

"Research cited by activists has been criticised, and at the same time acknowledged that men are victims of domestic violence. However, claims that such violence is gender symmetrical has been disputed".

To me the other version is buffery, synthesis and original research. But it stands for the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to paraphrase what I believe the arguments are here, so if I'm mis-representing someone's argument please point out where. For the people who believe that those sections is fine, the argument is,

1. These critics criticize the mens rights movement.

2. These critics are Academics

3. There are no published academic sources that disagree with critics

4. Therefore "Academics" criticize the mens rights movement.

In this case, we are using absence of evidence as a proof that since nobody speaks out, there must be academic consensus. However, The guidelines pointed out in WP:RS/AC state that in order to say that there is academic consensus we need a reliable source that explicitly says so. In the exception case used by Slp1 of Aids denialism I find two cases where academic consensus is mentioned, in the first case, two sources are cited, one is from The national institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the other is Centers for Disease Control. In this case we have two organizations which are in charge of overseeing their respective communities. As such any statement from them can be taken as the consensus of their communities. The second case is an article in which discusses how denialists go against consensus, as such is a source on the consensus. Thus the only exception from the guidelines in Aids denialism relies on statements from organizations which represent their respective communities. However, the sources supplied in this case, are of individual academics, and unless specifically sourced cannot speak for their academic communities as a whole. Note: If you have a disagreement with these presentations, I would appreciate if you would point out where. Kyohyi (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You are misquoting IRS. The statement there is that "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.". There is no statement here that "all or most scholars" say anything. In fact your preferred formulation "some academics..." would also require just such a reliable source to source it; this is especially so from an accuracy perspective as no academic source with an alternate view has ever been provided, despite multiple requests.

If you don't like the Aids denialism example - and I agree may not be an exact parallel, as in that case an academic consensus is claimed, and I suppose it could be argued that the sources represent a larger community than is suggested by "this committee" which is, for example, cited as the authority in one- try the more emotive Holocaust denial, in which the more directly parallel sentence "Scholars consider this to be misleading, since the methods of Holocaust denial differ from those of legitimate historical revision" is cited to 4 individual scholars.[1]. Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is, basically, that errors and policy violations exist in other articles, so therefore we should allow them here? Fail. Belchfire-TALK 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Way to go with the strawman! I thought after all the explanations a practical example might help, but I guess not. However, assuming you are serious, I look forward to seeing how you get on at the Holocaust denial talkpage asking for the "policy violation" to be corrected.Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like using other articles in this manner as examples, as I believe Kyohyi to be correct. I also agree very much with Belchfire. Just because you see another article use these methods does not make them correct.

At this time, it looks as if there is movement in this discussion. Three editors feel the language is not to policy and two believe that it is. I suggest an RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your count is off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your count is off. External opinions are welcome, but since your argument is about NOR, I'd also suggest WP:NORN, as Kevin did above, as the best spot to get other opinions.Slp1 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a straw man; it's a precise summary of your argument. And as if to double-down on it, you continue to rely on other articles to justify what goes into this one. That doesn't cut it. Please confine discussion to this article, or else simply concede the point gracefully. Belchfire-TALK 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not so much. Please check

• I just made a minor wording change to "Academics have criticized" from "Academics criticize." Hopefully, this will address concerns that the statement as it stood might have been interpreted as saying "academic consensus rejects the activists claim" (which would be OR and possibly incorrect.) Also, as a reminder to all participants in this discussion, this article is under community probation, the terms of which can be viewed via the link at the top of this page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, Kevin. Your edit mitigates the problem to some degree, but fails short of resolving it, IMO. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Belchfire and also feel the change in the middle of the discussion was innapropriate for an article under probation. That was not a very good move here in my opinion. I would request that you reverse yourself please and continue to discuss this before attempting to make further changes to prose while a dispute is ongoing on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel a good faith attempt to improve the wording of a phrase to resolve raised concerns is a violation of the terms of this article's probation, I am both a bit confused and strongly disagree with you. I am not going to be reversing my change, since I do think it improves the sentence, and even Belchfire thinks that it mitigates to an extent the problems he sees in the sentence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not working in a colaborative effort on an article under probation and are pushing things a bit. What you call a good faith attempt to alter the prose in question, I see as taking matters into your own hands knowing we cannot revert you. Your behavior here seems to be to do as you please when there is an ongoing discussion. I don't doubt your good faith, but do doubt that you are working with others to do much more than keep the synthesis. I would rather that was reverted and feel you did not have a consensus to do it. Even Blech stated it did not resolve the issue and it doesn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you genuinely feel my edit made the article worse rather than better, you are perfectly capable of reverting me. I'm certainly not operating under the assumption that no one can revert me. There's nothing in the terms of article probation that says that it's unacceptable to revert another editor. I would ask you to only revert my edit if you genuinely feel it made the problem worse, rather than better, but that's a judgement call for you. If you really honestly feel that the problem that you see (that I still do not understand) was made worse by my edit, then revert me.

There's no need to establish consensus before making an edit, even when there's an on-going discussion about an issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As the probation states: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Knowing that even a single edit could be seen as edit warring and given that there is currently a discussion and several reverts to the prose in question.....you could well be seen as edit warring. If you don't wish to work together with the involved editors you may be in danger of sanctions. I stop short of making any claims of such but do feel you are not working in a collaborative effort. Could you at least consider not making further changes while the discussion is underway. This is a reasonable request I believe.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel my behavior constitutes a violation of the terms of the probation, I would actively encourage you to ask an uninvolved administrator (recruited through WP:ANI or whatever other forum you'd like) to review my behavior. As I said above: if you genuinely feel my edit made the problem worse, rather than better, please feel absolutely free to revert my edit. Given that I am actively engaged on this talk page in trying to figure out a way to address your concerns, I am not sure why you feel I am not here to work collaboratively. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you seem to be working on your own and ignoring the discussion as well as the concerns of others. You seem to feel inclined to edit instead of gaining the consensus of editors to make changes here. I have made my suggestions and need not go to an admin. Please do not alter the prose again untill we have all decided what is the proper way to move forward. You edit was unconstructive.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, there's no need to establish consensus before making an edit, even when there's an on-going discussion about an issue. You're absolutely right that I am generally inclined to make bold edits in attempts to address concerns that people have brought up without first establishing consensus that my wording is the best possible wording, especially when I honestly believe that my wording will be more agreeable to all parties than the previous wording was. That isn't disruptive - it's generally considered best practice. I made my edit because I believed you would find the wording more to your taste than the prior version; if I was wrong, then please, revert me. I say that in perfect seriousness. I am actively engaging in this discussion in multiple places, and actively trying to understand and address the concerns that people are bringing up. Please either stop focusing on the fact that I made an edit, or simply revert my edit. Please either stop making allegations about my behavior and focus your comments on trying to figure out how to improve the content of this page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to review my behavior. (I would be fine with you doing either, but would like to point out that continuing to focus on my behavior instead of the content of the article is both unproductive and potentially a probation violation.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Kevin's edit was an attempt at a compromise, which is always to be welcomed. Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It was just working around the rest of us and continueing a dispute. I am not new and understand the tactics employed in order to gain movement in the direction of a point of view shared by a handful of editors, but again, it really was not appropriate to edit while we ere discussing the contnet. As a dispute requires consensus and no consensus exists yet....the prose should be returned to the state before his change. No consensus, no change. That is policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was extending an olive branch towards Kevin in the interest of creating a collegial atmosphere. I was not endorsing his edit. Belchfire-TALK 00:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you rather it be phrased "Academics, including (long list of academics who are cited at the end of the sentence), have criticized the activist's claims"? I guess we could theoretically do that, but it would be horribly ungainly, and run counter to the encyclopedic summary style Wikipedia normally uses. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Kevin's edit is an improvement Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Still feel this is best:

"Research cited by activists has been criticised, and at the same time acknowledged that men are victims of domestic violence. However, claims that such violence is gender symmetrical has been disputed".

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested phrasing fails to follow standard Wikipedia guidelines regarding attribution of criticism, and also fails to adequately represent the frequency and degree of criticism. Both of these present WP:NPOV problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for phrasing that doesn't imply it's a widely-held view. Preceding it with the word "some" is the most obvious and most efficient way to do that, but it's been ruled out. Amad's fix is a bit cumbersome, but it would get the job done. Belchfire-TALK 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra indentations so that it's extra-clear I'm replying to you. I don't actually have a huge problem with prefacing it with the word "some." I have some issues with it (that could hopefully be resolved once better sources are brought in to play,) but it's certainly a better solution than Amad's suggested one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, Belchfire, that you want to emphasize that WP doesn't imply that it isn't a widely held view. Do you actually have any evidence from reliable sources that this isn't the case? That's where this discussion has to start. Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit cumbersome, but purposely made in this manner, as to not change the information or facts themselves but eliminate the OR and synthesis. We can play around with the prose here and discuss ways to make it flow better.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually your formulation begs the tags "who?".... and the answer is "academics". --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which only begs for a question of "what academics".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, all the sources that have been found so far. Are there any academics that disagree with this? The ball is in your court to prove otherwise. This question and discussion is only relevant if you have any reliable sources that there is some sort of disagreement. Slp1 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And not one of them supports the claim. Clear synthesis of combining opinions of a handfull of acadmeics to make the statement without anyone of these sources actually saying this. Clearly some POV goin on here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, all the references to date do support the claim, and per Wikipedia:Scientific consensus "The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion." That's exactly what we have here. It's very, very easy to come disprove that there is no consensus. Just come up with some reliable academic sources that disagrees with this view.

Contrary to your claim, the clear POV issue comes from people who wish to marginalize the scholarly view without providing one iota of evidence that there is any disagreement in the scholarly community. It's so easy per NPOV... provide some sources to support what you want to include, and this conversation can be over. I can't believe the time that gets spent in discussion, and not a single source gets provided. Slp1 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see at all how any sources support the claim as written and it should also be noted that Wikipedia:Scientific consensus is simply an essay is is not policy or guideline but merely the suggestion of a number of editors and its application here seems a tad erroneous.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved stepping in to make a minor comment about sourcing, sources have to be "independent" of the subject. If one of the concerns here are that many of the scholarly sources are from feminist scholars, folks who stand to lose if the subject gains, then they are not independent of the subject.--v/r - TP 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This interpretation of policy strikes me as peculiar, and is as far as I am aware, a completely novel interpretation. If we applied this standard elsewhere, we would be unable to use any academic sources in our article on intelligent design, since evolutionary scientists would stand to lose out on a lot if intelligent design was accepted by the mainstream community. The idea that we would disregard scholarly sources in this fashion is not supported by policy or common sense. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a "novel interpretation"; that's a fair reading of the plain language in the policy. WP:RS The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. If we can determine that a source has a vested interest in the subject matter, that source is questionable, or be attributed and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Academic sources are not immune from this concern.

And, I remind:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

There is no serious question that the current wording goes against WP:RS. Belchfire-TALK 21:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

By novel interpretation, I meant one that has not previously been advanced anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's certainly not the standard applied to other areas where similar concerns occur, and is out of line with the letter and spirit of every content policy that we have. Also, please reread what I have actually said throughout this thread. I think you may be conflating the opinions I hold with those that Slp and other editors hold, since I have not suggested we should present the issue as an academic consensus and don't view the current wording as doing so. Anyway, I'm going to take a break from participating in this discussion thread until someone makes a productive suggestion or until more editors who have not previously participated in MRM-related disputes express opinions, because I think this discussion has reached the point of unproductivity. If you would like to make forward progress on this issue, I would suggest inviting outside input via a noticeboard or running a neutrally-worded RfC. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Break

Slp1, that is a highly selective and very self-serving reading of the policy. You are conveniently omitting the very next sentence, which reads: The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. So far, such a source does not appear to exist. In this case, you are defending the findings of one group of scientists over those of another group... evidently, because they hold the opinion that you prefer. And this is the basic problem with saying that the "critics" hold a consensus view: they don't, and they are referred to as "critics" for that precise reason. Other scientist hold opposing views, and the "critics" may or may not be in the minority, but they certainly don't speak for the scientific community as a whole, and sourced content already in the article says as much. Belchfire-TALK 05:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let me see if I understand the dispute. A number of academics criticize the MRM but there is little to no academic literature defending the MRM. And the question is, should that be interpreted as meaning academia as a whole condemns the MRM? I don't think so; that's a separate claim and requires sourcing. I would challenge any such interpretation. I suspect the disparity exists because, to get your views published in these journals, you have to blame and vilify men; I don't believe it has anything at all to do with the actual merits of your work. The views of a small and opinionated group of scholars occupying the very lowest rung of what could be considered academic literature cannot be taken as representative of academia as a whole.Reyk _YO! 07:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Reyk - how do you feel about the current wording? I'm not sure that we should be presenting this as an academic consensus (although I'm not sure we shouldn't, I just haven't thought about it enough,) and tried to modify the wording a bit so as to make it more clear that it's not necessarily an academic consensus. But we have a situation in which we're citing half a dozen academics who are explicitly criticizing the claims of the activists, and plenty more notable academics have done so also. We could individually name each academic who has criticized the claims, but that would result in a laundry list a mile long. To me, saying "Academics have criticized these claims" is literally just a way of avoiding listing out the names of twenty or thirty academics who have explicitly criticized these claims - an encyclopedic summation. Can you come up with a wording that would avoid the concerns of Belch and Amad that would also avoid an awkward sounding laundry list of names? Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple Compromise of Phrasing?

I think, from what I gather, the primary criticism of the original wording is that in saying that "Academics critique the claims" implies a consensus. The concern about this is that the language could be viewed as simply promoting the PoV that the MRMs concerns are illegitimate, rather than identifying academic criticisms of those concerns.Ironlion45 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tentatively altered the wording very slightly, in an attempt to make it more neutral and reflective of the fact that there are several (yet separate) sources of critique; Hopefully that very slight modification represents a satisfactory compromise between the two conflicting attitudes about that line here. Ironlion45 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi guys, I am stepping in to assist KillerChihuahua with patrolling this article. This is just a heads up that anymore warring over the tense of the criticism will result in a page protection to facilitate the above discussion. Please come to a consensus on the matter before editing that part anymore. It doesn't hurt the article any to leave it alone for a day or so while it is discussed.--v/r - TP 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, your help is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a Women's rights article, but no equivalent Men's Rights article?

There is a Women's rights article as well as a separate women's rights movement (Feminist movement) article. This is appropriate in that there is a distinction between a discussion of rights from a description of a political movement.

As I recall, there was once a Men's Rights article. It was lost when it was merged with this page, the Men's Rights Movement.

If the distinction between these two topics, rights vs. political movement, is relevant to one gender, why would it not also be relevant to the other? Memills (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There was already an RfC, archived here.[2] Please do not reopen that discussion after it has been closed. Also please read WP:FORUM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CCC. Also, that discussion was primarily about renaming the article, rather than proposing two different articles. It did not specifically address this issue: Why are two articles -- a rights page and a political movement page -- justified for women, but not for men? The same reasoning that justifies two separate pages for women would equally apply to men. These are two distinct topics. The topic of "rights" can be approached from multiple perspectives: legal, historical, psychological, sociological, etc. -- as distinct from a political movement. Here "rights" and "movement" are conflated and awkwardly forced-fit into this one article, which leads to confusion and editing disputes. Two separate articles would rectify that, and make consistent the WP treatment of both men's and women's issues. Memills (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There were very prolonged discussions that were closed in August. Trying to restart them only four months later is not helpful. You might also want to read WP:SOAPBOX. Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the same issue. Old issue: renaming an article. New issue: the need for two separate articles to bring the WP treatment of men's issues in line with the WP treatment of women's issues. Memills (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the page to discuss that. You could always ask KillerChihuahua. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic was also discussed, even more recently, in September 2012 [3]. To summarize: it is up to you or anybody else who wants to create a Men's Rights page to produce the reliable secondary sources that show that Men's Rights (as I believe you would like to see them defined, but see the next paragraph too) is a topic that exists independently of the men's rights movements and their claims. There can be no discussion until that happens. As has already been pointed out WP does not create articles simply to create internal consistency or fairness. We need sources.

Note also that given this is a global encyclopedia, any page named "Men's Rights" will have to reflect the global perspective that in many countries and cultures men actually have many more rights than women, including rights over women. There are multiple scholarly sources for this, obviously, and I listed a bunch in the discussion linked to above.Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

These are imaginary constraints with no basis in policy. The only thing I see above that can be validated is the point about internal consistency. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that notability and verifiability are imaginary constraints with no basis in policy, or did I misunderstand you? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that is what Belchfire was suggesting. Rather, there are notable, reliable and verifiable sources from a variety of disciplines (legal, medical/health, psychological, sociological, anthropological) that address issues related to men's rights apart from any political movement per se (e.g., the fairness of a male-only draft, the relatively meager attention given to the high rate of male rape in prisons, faster male senescence, etc.). The Women's rights article similarly focuses on concepts and issues of rights not necessarily related to particular political movements.

As I have mentioned previously, the book by Benatar The Second Sexism deals with many men's rights issues, apart from any particular political movement. It might be a good starting point for developing topics and sources for such an article.

Additional thought: to avoid overly narrow interpretation of the term "men's rights" (that many not include unfair application of rights, cultural expectations and stereotypes, etc.) perhaps a new page might be more appropriately titled "Men's Rights and Issues." Memills (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, definitely not. Please read WP:POVFORK. You cannot try and perform an end-run to write the kind of article that is being prevented here by editors who are more familiar with Wikipedia practices. The kind of article that could list any damn issue that was slightly related to men's rights, without having a reference to the men's rights movement, would be deleted very quickly. You have to work within the strictures of Wikipedia's rules to discuss the issues that are important to the men's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think a "Men's Rights and Issues" would come too close to this article and we'd end up with some WP:REDUNDANTFORK, though a more narrowly defined article to "Men's Rights" or "Men's rights and responsibilities" which deals with historical, and cultural views of men might solve any Fork issues. Kyohyi (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Same args would apply equally to the Women's rights and the Feminism articles. Yet, both articles peacefully coexist. Memills (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they peacefully co-exist because there are multiple reliable sources on the subject of women's rights, and multiple other (separate and different) sources about feminism. The sources treat this as two (albeit overlapping) topics and thus so do we. Find reliable secondary sources that speak about "men's rights" separately from the "men's rights movement" and you are on your way. But despite multiple requests and prompts nobody has ever been able to produce any. Opinions are two a penny. Find the sources. --Slp1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the a good way to describe the difference is that wikipedia generally reflects what is currently important to people as well as what has historically been important. Because of this some subjects are covered in more detail than others, and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to cover areas that humanity has not deemed important. Kyohyi (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

I'm already working on Men's Issues - pretty big topic, though. Carptrash (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Men's Issues is probably a better article title, in that the term is more broad and so editors will be less likely to get bogged down in debates about what is a "right" vs. what is an "issue." Memills (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bogged down" seems like code for "the process whereby crappy additions are seriously questioned and/or reverted by experienced encyclopedia contributors". I cannot think how an article about "men's issues" could be kept from violating WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily hostile. Let's wait and see how it turns out. There's no need to rush to pre-judge this proposed article. Reyk _YO! 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"I cannot think how an article about "men's issues" could be kept from violating WP:NOR."

I'm sure most Wikipedians were saying the same thing about the new "Women's Issues" article back in the 1950s. Memills (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm... no. They would have multiple sources on the actual topic of "women's rights" no less: Olympe de Gouges's Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791),Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1891); John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women(1869); Tennessee Celeste Claflin's Constitutional equality: a right of woman (1871); Hecker's A short history of women's rights from the days of Augustus to the present time (1914); The United Nation's Political rights of women: 56 years of progress (1946) and Advances in the recognition, exercise and observation of women's rights (1955); Songalia's Women's rights (1958) and I could go on and on of course. Note how clear it is that even by the 1950s, Women's rights were not being discussed only by feminists or in discussions about the views of women's rights/suffrage movement. That's simply not the case with "men's rights" at present. Maybe the UN will one day issue a report on "Advances in the recognition, exercise and observation of men's rights", but that time has not yet come. As multiple editors have pointed out, these continual attempts to force an equality between subjects that are not equal -based on what is important to Wikipedia, sources- is totally inappropriate, and getting into I don't hear that territory.

While not wanted to prejudge the issue I share Binksternet's concerns that any article called "Men's issues" is liable to be a mass of OR and synthesis. I mean, there are all sort of things that could be described men's issues by somebody. Whether to shave or wear a beard. Fatherhood. Gay relationships. Why fewer jean designs are available for men. Prostrate cancer. Paternity leave. Macho culture. Seduction community methods and concepts. Impotence. etc etc. I'd also suggest that before going very far with this that Carptrash do a variation of what Kevin Gorman in August suggested for those who wanted to write an article on men's rights [4]: "find post at least six reliable sources that deal with the concept of "men's issues". Then, write and post a coherent statement of the scope you envision for this article, and, since we don't conduct original research, justify that scope with reliable sources that use similar scopes." It would be a shame to do a lot of work for nothing, and I'll need some help from sources to see that this is coherent topic that needs a WP article.--Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some animals are apparently more equal than others.

See the books listed in the "Further Reading" section of this article for an introduction to men's issues, for starters. Want more? A Google search of "men's issues" turns up close to one million results. A Google Scholar search for "men's rights" returns more than 3,500 academic articles; "men's issues" returns more than 1,800. Enter these search terms in Google Books for many book-length treatments...

Lots of reliable sources. And more than enough bedtime reading to cure any insomniac. Memills (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Counts from Google searches aren't going to cut it, Memills, as you should know by now since I and others discussed it with you on your talkpage.[5] Frankly it just makes your argument look ridiculous when one can quickly see from a quick survey of the first 10 hits on the google scholar search that....

• 6 are about men's rights movement and their activities [6][7][8][9][10][11]
• 3 are about "men's rights" to engage in domestic violence [12], to purchase sex [13], to have privileges in the workplace [14]. I suspect these are not exactly the men's rights you are thinking about for the topic of the article.
• 1 is an individual critique of the International Conference on Population and Development report, concluding that "many men and boys all over the world continue to face acute disadvantages compared to better-off males."

There are no references here to "men's rights" - at least of the sort you would like explored - separate from the men's rights movement. As I have asked before, when you want to make a point in future please back it up with references and diffs. The request above was for a coherent statement of the scope of the article backed up with specific reliable sources; that means the names of particular books, articles, page numbers, links. Sweeping general statements and your opinions just don't cut it, and in my view this conversation showed be tabled until somebody actually comes up with some real goods to discuss. --Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, seriously, why don't you start with a simple read of a couple of recent secondary sources, and worry later about which specific google results you believe are relevant or not. How about starting with Benatar's The Second Sexism and Bauermeister's Is There Anything Good About Men? Those two secondary sources alone have more than enough material, as a start, to fill a WP article about men's issues. Memills (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to apologize to everyone here, I have no intention in writing a Men’s Issues article. Especially if it is going to come with perspectives such as, “I'm sure most Wikipedians were saying the same thing about the new "Women's Issues" article back in the 1950s.” Wikipedia in the 1950s was . . …….what? Or did I miss something? Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there really was a great deal of resistance to the inclusion of a Wikipedia "Women's Issues" article in the 1950s. It was probably, in part, due to the frustration having to use IBM punch cards. :-P

I see you were being facetious too, suggesting you were working on a Men’s Issues article.

And, I believed them when they told me that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary... Memills (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell:

• men's rights directs to men's rights movement
• women's rights movement directs to women's rights

I find this a bit confusing. Does this mean that in the case of one gender, the movement said to be about rights is more notable than the issue of rights, but in the opposite case, the issue of rights is more notable than the movement said to be about rights?

It would be nice if Wikipedia had an equal sort of presentation for both issues. I personally would think the abbreviated "X's rights" (how it currently is for women) is the superior format. All sorts of things can be affixed like 'movement' or 'activist' or 'activism' so using the root term is the best and most inclusive label seeing as how the articles will inevitably discuss them all.

To make one gender (female) about the 'rights' (the issues) and the other gender (male) about the 'movement' (the people) it shows a strange difference in focus here. As if one is considered to be a valid issue worth discussion on its own, where as in the other case, the other issue is not considered valid enough for its own article and instead what is considered notable is targetting the people pushing the issues.

Really we should keep trying to move this to simply "men's rights" in line with the women's article. There is nothing special about 'movement' and it shows a bias and excessive amount of specificity when the issue is broader and the word doesn't stand out as always (or only) thing following the 'mens's rights' phrase. Ranze (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't try to write articles in a vacuum of theoretical neutrality - we write articles based on how subjects have been treated in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV.) If two topics have been treated differently in reliable sources (as these two topics have,) then Wikipedia can (and actively should) treat them differently in our articles. This article has been discussed tons on this talk page in the past, a lot of previous discussions on this page (including some in the archives) talk about the reasons for this difference in treatment. 00:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Baloney... that is not what WP:NPOV means. Reliable sources from one side a debate should not be "treated differently" simply because the other side thinks they should. That's a red herring. And it has been used repeatedly here to obfuscate the issues and to suppress inclusion the of reliable sources ( ...but, only those sources that should be "treated differently"). Memills (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple people have requested, multiple times, that you provide sources to back up your claim that enough independent sources exist that deal with "men's rights" as a coherent concept separate from the men's rights movement so as to warrant a separate article. You have not done so. As far as I have been able tell, this is because such sources don't exist. When such sources do exist, we'll have an article on "men's rights." Until they do, we shouldn't, because we treat topics in the way that reliable sources treat them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My goodness -- "sources don't exist" re men's rights and men's issues? It is hard to take you seriously sometimes. I have repeatedly listed here solid secondary sources to issues related to men's rights (and not about the men's rights movement per se). Say, Bauermeister, Nathanson and Young, and Benatar to name just a few authors of recent academic books about men's rights and issues -- the authors are university professors. Give 'em a read --- refreshing novel in that they don't toe the postmodernist, social constructionist feminist theory "scholarship" promulgated in the inbred academic backwaters of Women's Studies Departments. Memills (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you have repeatedly been told that books that do not discuss men's rights but in your opinion are about "issues related to men's rights" are not appropriate or useable, as it is original research and synthesis to do so. I am also curious that you would recommend the Bauermeister book. Note this review from Globe and Mail. "Nevertheless, the book fails. It argues poorly, its basic claims are unsubstantiated, its methodology almost insults the reader"..."Cherry-picked references from medical studies, history, news accounts, anthropology, "pop" and feminist literature highlight one of the book's main problems. This is a book of speculation that tries to become fact by carefully selecting supportive evidence, anecdotes, other theories and Baumeister's own personal experience; then he appears to give all categories of "data" equal weight."[15] I'm guessing that you are thinking, well, yes, a review from a MRA opponent, therefore predictable and discountable. But surprise, surprise, it was written by Wendy McElroy - who is actually a well-known supporter of men's rights cause! Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanction

I noticed while editing this that the following message appears at the top:

WARNING This article is under a community general sanction. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

I find this warning confusing as there is little information about it. For example: how and when did a sanction start? When and how could it end? Who has been banned as a result of editing? These seem like important questions to ask but it seems like we're left in the dark about it. Is there a way in which editors could be more informed about what this means and learn more? Either by improving the warning, posting some kind of template, or at least clarifying it here on the talk page?

A clarification (and example, when actions were taken) of what 'disruptive edits' mean in this context would be valuable in guiding us. Ranze (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information you are looking for can be found here: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. This link is at the top of this talk page, for future reference. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and harmonized the text of the editnotice on the article page with the warning on the top of this talk page. If anyone has any further suggestions for improving it, I would imagine it could definitely be improved further :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The verbiage is fairly standard; I took it from the Paul Ryan editnotice. OTH, the Barak Obama page is also under sanctions and they link to the discussion. IOW, there was no intent to confuse, and no issues with the new verbiage. KillerChihuahua 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit to History section

I'm concerned about this recent edit[16] - it does not seem, to me, to reflect the cited sources. Does anyone else have an opinion here? It's a small edit, but it does change the meaning of the sentence. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that edit myself, before seeing your comment here. I disagreed so strongly with the change that I immediately reversed it. It is not just feminists that see the men's rights movements as a counter-movement to the women's rights movement, it is just about everybody, including the scholars who have written our sources. Basically, the men's rights movement would not exist without the actions of feminists or the women's rights movement. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The scholars cited in this article are feminists.

Most of the issues raised by the MRM are independent of feminism. There is a focus on feminism within the Men's Rights Movement because it is the largest obstacle to its success and feminist concepts such as patriarchy theory create ideological conflict between the two groups. Squirtlekin (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Replying to Binksternet)I agree with everything you said here; I nearly reverted it myself, but I'm wary of doing that here because of the article sanctions. I support your reversion, though, obviously. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited this paragraph to clarify that this is how feminists view the Men's Rights Movement. The sources provided are by feminist authors, and are not the views of MRAs or neutral sources.

I think the section should be rewritten to be more neutral and stay on the topic of the MRM's history, and perhaps this paragraph should be moved to a section for feminist views on the MRM. --Squirtlekin (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The scholars are scholars first. Their research is peer-reviewed and accurate. There is no call for someone to attempt to reduce their scholarship by hinting that they are biased. Their scholarship is not biased, especially on the question of what was the impetus for the men's rights movement. The best you can do, Squirtlekin, is find a respected thought leader who says that the scholarship on the topic is biased toward feminism because it is covered primarily by feminists. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Then can you provide evidence that shows this is an accurate depiction of MRA views? Can you provide neutral and MRA sources which agree with this depiction of the MRM?

If not, then there is no reason to describe the views of feminists as an academic consensus. Squirtlekin (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on you, the editor who wishes to add text. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore it's wikipedia's job to accurately reflect what reliable sources say not 'the truth'. That might seem strange but that's how this project works--Cailil ^talk 11:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Squirtlekin to clarify, the neutral point of view means that wikipedia records the views of sources without inserting our biases into or about them. It does NOT require a source be "neutral" just that we don't frame it to suit our personal points of view. Your above comment shows a common misunderstanding of that policy (that a source should be neutral)--Cailil ^talk 12:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all sources should be neutral, I'm saying that only including feminist sources makes for a clearly biased article. Are these impartial statements?

"Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights. The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest."

Why not cite MRA writers such as Warren Farrell? He and Herb Goldberg are mentioned, but not cited for where they supposedly make their statements.

Although this paragraph has been moved to another section now, at least.Squirtlekin (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Farrell is mentioned 3 times by name in the article and 2 of his books are cited. Besides it doesn't matter who wrote the info it just matters that it passes wikipedia's tests for reliability--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

separating feminist commentary from primary sources in the men's rights movement

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.

---

In the history section there was a citation from academic feminist sarah maddison. I have no problem with her or the source, but considering the controversy surrounding this topic and bias self-identified feminists could have in regards to it, it is disingenuous and misleading to include feminist sources without specifically identifying them as feminist. I think a separate section should be created for feminist interpretation and response to the men's rights movement. In cases where a source self-identifying as feminist is very relevant outside of this section, that source needs to be qualified as coming from a feminist perspective. To do otherwise is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)

If a scholar writes a scholarly work in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal such Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, then any attempt to reduce their scholarship should be dismissed, not encouraged. A scholar should compartmentalize any bias she has, and the peer review process assures us that the research and analysis have been assessed as rigorous enough for us. I strongly disagree that we need to create a special section intended to ghetto-ize any scholar who also happens to be a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, what Binksternet said. If something is published in a solid academic source, it's not our place to try to implicitly belittle their scholarship. We consider scholarly sources - especially ones that have underwent peer review - to be of the highest quality. We can present alternate viewpoints where they have been published in sources of suitable quality, but we present scholarship as scholarship. (I'm pretty busy today, so will be unlikely to be too active replying here or watching changes made to this page until tomorrow.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Feminism has unfortunately gained a hegemony on the social sciences and as such has gained significant power to frame the debate in these communities. In addition, there is evidence and sources that I could provide that demonstrate this as the case. The social sciences (social psychology especially) suffer a lot of problems. Mainly it comes from over interpreting results, but also comes from faulty statistics as well. However, here is not the forum for that extended discussion. Possibly, that could be included as a section of this article though...

I do not wish to belittle the work of academics and it is very important that any ACTUAL belittling be removed, but it is extraordinarily disingenuous to allow the people who mostly dislike and disagree with this movement to frame the entire narrative without disclosing their perspective. I don't see how, if worded fairly, identifying the source as feminist inspired is belittling. I do not advocate getting rid of sources, but I do advocate putting all sources in proper context. And knowing that a source derives ultimately from someone with a stake and position in this debate, opposite to those who actually make up the movement itself, is important for full disclosure. Without this minor acquiescence, it simply will not be possible for the MRM to take this page seriously to edit it actively.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.250.95 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 March 2013‎ (UTC)

If you are going to try and tackle the question of whether feminists have "gained a hegemony" (which I don't see) then you'll have to look in the mirror and ask yourself why is it that men's rights advocates have so little traction in academia. Is it because of the ridiculousness of the MRM position, the obvious fact that women were downtrodden for millennia and have only recently won some degree of equality? Yeah, probably. The pendulum has not swung the other way, making man subservient to woman. The MRM position is afraid of such a development, but other folks are not at all concerned. Until MRM gets its own share of scholars, the problem with your negative assessment of this Wikipedia article will continue to be this: scholars define the topic. That is, scholars who say things you don't like to hear. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2013 (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.

Editorialized section violating NPOV

These sentences in the history section are very editorialized and either need to be rewritten or deleted:

Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[9][5] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the text is well-cited to William Rhys and to Michael Meissner; both respected in their field. The analysis is not contradicted by any other scholar that I know of. If you find a scholar who disagrees then we can put both viewpoints in there. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this wording accurately reflects the intents of the authors. Specifically, rather than being neutral the use of "" is intended to presupposes certain attitudes about this issue and is seething with sarcasm. It is absolutely atrocious in the way it is currently written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.250.95 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read it as sarcasm at all. I think the quotation marks are just there to indicate that MRAs are using the same words as feminists according to the source - that they are "quoting" feminism, if you will. They might not be necessary, though, but nobody who dislikes the passage has yet suggested a way it could be rewritten, so I guess it stands for now. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

They look like scare quotes to me, though that may not be how they're intended. Reyk _YO! 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that, though it wasn't how I read them personally. What about just removing the quotation marks? I don't think they're needed; I think the text works just fine without them. The fact that some people are seeing sarcasm or scare quotes here means we should do something, I think. Is there any support for removing the quotation marks without changing the words? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing them if people are perceiving them as scare quotes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Influx of new editors

Hi all - as you have probably noticed, there have been an influx of new editors on this page. This influx will probably continue for some time. I recently had some conversations with men's rights activists who I know in real life about this set of issues, and they convinced me it would be a potentially productive idea for me to try to directly engage with Reddit's men's rights community. I've gone ahead and done so. From talking with many of these people, I have the feeling that they would genuinely like to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way. I'm hoping that I (and other established editors) can guide them towards making productive contributions to the encyclopedia. Obviously, all of Wikipedia's normal content policies still apply, as does the probation that applies to this article, but I would ask y'all to try as hard as you can to assume good faith (even if combined with ignorance) on the part of new editors from this influx until they definitively prove bad faith. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, it will be nice to see more editors, but unless the culture of editing on Wikipedia changes my fear is they will come and go as many have before. CSDarrow (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to some thoughtful editors & edits. My preadvice for them is (1)use good sources, (2)don't tell us men are getting screwed because they have to open doors for women or if they are on a sinking ship, that they are the last to get off & (3) don't say "Well they say this at such and such a women's rights page". It have problems with other articles, deal with that there. Other than that, well and a few more thing, welcome to this little Peyton Place called wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure any new editors will find your message to them both warm and welcoming. CSDarrow (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I found it both warm and welcoming, so much so that I don't even know how to go about dealing with something like this. I honestly do not understand what I did wrong here, why it's wrong or how I can keep from receiving the same sort of verbal assault in the future. As far as I know, I followed all of wikipedia's guidelines, I provided suggestions of quotes from a good source that's already used in the article to help improve the article, I made no statement one way or another about the state of men's rights in general and didn't even mention other pages.Ismarc (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wowza. I certainly don't think you did anything that could have justified those comments, Ismarc. I hope you won't let one individual scare you away. I think some good work has been done here for the past few days. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ismarc, carptrash is completely out of line. I have posted numerous responses in your defense. She is being extremely immature. In her most recent edit summary to the talk page she even "accidentally" wrote "dies" instead of does. She must have some sort of emotional problem. Please do not let her get to you. You have made good edits. I have also asked for more experienced wikipedia users to get involved and take action against her obnoxious behavior. Hopefully that will be resolved soonYhwhsks (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

She has been advised previously to retract a few ad-hominems directed at MRAs in general. Apparently, that hasn't yet stopped her incivility. Memills (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that a bunch of men's rights activists have been invited from Reddit to edit this article? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Having come here after browsing ANI, I have to wonder how Kevin has avoided scrutiny for his confession of canvassing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate. Not Kevins's style. At all. Let's just hope that the Reddit crowd will edit constructively. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Feminism

"Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[14][5] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

The first sentence is dubious in that "feminist rhetoric of 'rights' and 'equality'" is a rhetoric that does not "belong" to feminism and has been used by many movements all the back to Spartacus and the Roman slave revolt, and probably beyond. The second sentence violates wp:undue. Both sentences should be removed, especially the second, they add little to the section and have aged references.CSDarrow (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You're challenging what is in the scholarly sources. In order to modify it, you must locate a citation that says this finding is wrong. The modification would then be something like "sources A and B say that feminist rhetoric was co-opted, sources C and D say it was not." Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is not how Wikipedia works. CSDarrow (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact it is CSDarrow. Wikipedia records what sources say not 'the truth'. If this thread descends into general discussion of the topic of rights it will be closed. This area is under probation--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact Cailil, the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in five "pillars" WP:FIVE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The explanations of neutral point of view WP:YESPOV and WP:NPOV make excellent reading. The sentences under dispute were added without discussion or rationale and violate WP:NPOV on multiple counts. I think it is good we all regularly re-read the fundamental principles underpinning Wikipedia, lest we fall into the all too human trap of adding that which we find emotionally satisfying rather than pertinent and constructive. On this point I am sure you'd agree.

This area is indeed under probation and the associated terms and conditions I might add also apply to you Cailil. I am informed many editors are falling away from Wikipedia because of a perceived hostile editing environment. I hope this exchange has not exasperated this. As always a pleasure. CSDarrow (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exacerbated?

The scenario I described above neatly fits our YESPOV guideline regarding relative prominence of opposing views: either no scholar disagrees and we state the analysis as fact, or a prominent scholar disagrees and we present both views equally, or a prominent MRM thought leader disagrees and we attribute his lesser position with appropriate weight relative to the mainstream scholarly consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact CSDarrow, thank you for that useful and spot on comment. You are doing a great service.

In fact Binksternet, the text being discussed very clearly violates NPOV. It obviously assumes a specific point of view by its judicious use of tasteless quoting. Since no one is arguing to remove the source, this isn't about the source in question. It is about false representation of said source and the interjection of sarcastic writing that doesn't represent that source. I welcome you to provide a specific quote from his source that supports the current wording.

In fact Cailil, thank you for not censoring anymore discussions lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this section is important in that it provides a 1) place for feminist commentary, 2) provides full disclosure about the origin of the source, and 3) will eliminate the need to discuss the perspective of each of these sources individually (which some mistakenly confuse with belittling). For the sake of integrity and honesty, it is import to disclose the perspective of a source with such a controversial issue and this provide a neutral way to do so. Bringing back another comment minus any digressions outside the scope of this forum.

I do not wish to belittle the work of academics and it is very important that any ACTUAL belittling be removed, but it is extraordinarily disingenuous to allow the people who mostly dislike and disagree with (the MRM) to frame the entire narrative without disclosing their perspective. I don't see how, if worded fairly, identifying the source as feminist inspired is belittling. I do not advocate getting rid of sources, but I do advocate putting all sources in proper context. And knowing that a source derives ultimately from someone with a stake and position in this debate, opposite to those who actually make up the movement itself, is important for full disclosure. Without this minor acquiescence, it simply will not be possible for the MRM to take this page seriously to edit it actively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhwhsks (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have likely overstepped my bounds in making the change, but, I've updated the section to reflect the contents of the source, using a direct quote from the source (using suggested wording from Cailil) and adjusted the quotations marks in a manner that I believe accurately represents the separation of items rather than scare quotes. If there is concern about this not being representative of the source, I'm more than willing to share the entirety of the relevant section so that it can be discussed in context. Ismarc (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this contribution Ismarc. It was a good edit. It has carried over some of the NPOV from the previous wording, but this is a definite improvement and is moving in the right direction. The quotes still appear a little like scare quotes. I understand baby steps will be needed however. Keep up the good work.Yhwhsks (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I left the remaining portion with the scary looking quotes (reason the term is used like that will be seen in a moment) because I was not comfortable making the call that a consensus had been reached. The sentence is a paraphrasing of the source that uses the quotation marks to separate out those particular framings being used from the description of their use. In the context of the source, they are obviously not scare quotes, but that same context isn't carried into the article. I'm for removal of the quotation marks on the last sentence, but I would much rather see a description of the conclusions of the source rather than chaining together paraphrases from each source. Ismarc (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If no one else contributes to this discussion in the next day or so, then I will take that as evidence that there is no objection to removing the quotes entirely. Better even is to go to the actual source and skim through it and completely rewrite those sentences from scratch. In all of the edits I have made I have found that the source in question is far more generous to the mrm than you would guess by the current wording. As a side note, if for any reason you can't access a journal article check /r/scholar Yhwhsks (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)