Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 2 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men's rights movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Template:Community article probation

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men's rights. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men's rights at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Men's Issues Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Points of interest related to Men's rights on Misplaced Pages: Category

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men's rights movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Some content around Men's rights movement was split from this article and then remerged. Some of the history of this split can be found here.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Men's rights movement Men's rights Discussions: RM, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, Not moved, 5 nov 2011, RM RFC, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, Moved, 14 Aug 2012, RFC RM, Men's rights movement → Men's rights, Not moved, 13 Sept 2012, RM

Recent edits re prison sentences

Over the last few days there has been some back and forth adding and removal of a section which quotes a speech by a British MP, Philip Davies. Two editors have added it a total of four times and four separate editors (one of them me) have removed it once each, all of whom mention original research and synthesis. Based on the edit summaries given there is some confusion among those editors wishing to include the material.

• "vandalism". Good faith edits to remove what editors honestly believe to be Original research are not vandalism. Please review WP:VANDALISM
• "original research and synthesis". Having a source does not mean that an edit is not original research; please review WP:SYNTH to see how two sourced edits can be put together to create a new, original idea. In this case, the "new original idea" is that this particular argument is one made by men's rights movement. This has been explained in more detail in a section above, Philip Davies is not a member of the men's rights movement and does not mention men's rights in his speech. To connect this speech and this man to the men's rights movement is original research, synthesis and a possible BLP violation.

What I cannot understand is why this is so difficult for people to understand and how it actually benefits the MRM to have this policy. I'll give an example: the very Hansard article cited includes multiple other MPs disagreeing with Martin and putting forward other statistics which suggest that in certain contexts women are discriminated against in the judicial system. Ignoring the problematic question of why "positive" material has been cherry picked out of the whole text, I'll just point out that the "negative" material is also equally excluded, as is any other material which "disproves" men's rights talking points in contexts unconnected to the topic of men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the edits that have been made and removed that you mention. But in that section, why do we have to put most of the information in the voice of Warren Farrell, when we have other sources stating the same thing. Such as "But men are also the main targets of military violence and criminal assault, and many more men than women are imprisoned or executed." from the cite already included elsewhere in the article. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be great to expand the voices from Farrell and thanks for actually providing a source!! The problem is that Connell isn't talking about the men's rights movement either and in fact a paragraph later states that "The disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages " so it would be taking his words out of context, don't you agree? But surely there are some other voices talking about the MRM (including prominent men's rights voices) to broaden things on this matter? I don't think we should get into statistics (because there are so many countries, kinds of crime etc etc) but I don't have any problem with going beyond Farrell. It's just what I had to had when I was trying to write something on the topic. Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The beginning sentence to the section that includes that quote is "The diversity among men and masculinities is reflected in a diversity of men’s movements in the developed countries", so I believe it would be hard to argue that what follows is unrelated to the Men's rights movement. No, I don't agree that those words would be taken out of context, as they are a statement of fact (both in the real world and in the writers voice). As it reads now, it is presented as a claim of Farrel, unnecessarily, I think. Arkon (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This "The diversity among men and masculinities.... " sentence actually comes much further on in the article than the original passage you cited. It doesn't head that section at all. But it is helpful because it shows that the requirement that there be an explicit connection made with the MRM doesn't just mean that only pro-MRM gets excluded. The section that it does begin describes several different, men's movements (such as white ribbon campaign, Men against Sexual Assault, gay men movements) and then makes an possible reference to men's rights groups describing them thus: "Explicit backlash movements also exist but have not generally had a great deal of influence. Men mobilizing as men to oppose women tend to be seen as cranks or fanatics. They constantly exaggerate women’s power. And by defining men’s interests in opposition to women’s, they get into cultural difficulties, since they have to violate a main tenet of modern patriarchal ideology—the idea that “opposites attract” and that men’s and women’s needs, interests, and choices are complementary." I would guess Connell is talking about men's rights groups (and maybe you do too) but he doesn't say so explicitly. My guess (and yours) is not relevant, so this material isn't going into the article in any form. Similarly with your supposition that Connell's comments about criminal justice are related to the men's rights movement. Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right about that coming up in a different spot. Ctrl-F failed me horribly on that one. However, you still aren't making a strong argument. This isn't about what "we guess". The section is speaking to gender equality, stating facts and positions of the men's side. The entire cite is riddled with references, paragraphs, and sections devoted the movements specifically. Attempting to exclude parts because some combination of words are not present within a certain vicinity of a piece of information, when the context is clear isn't the way to go. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is you that is not making a strong argument. The following sentences are in the same paragraph "men collectively receive the bulk of income in the money economy and occupy most of the managerial positions" and "In the domain of power men collectively control the institutions of coercion and the means of violence (e.g., weapons)." Would you think these sentences should go in to this article about the men's rights movement? My guess is you wouldn't (and I'd agree!!). If you think about the reasoning for your answer, you'll understand the problem. You are picking the parts of that paragraph that you think are about men's rights and that's called unverifiable, original research and synthesis. Read the whole paragraph again in context and you'll see that Connell is making a series of contrasts that lead up to the conclusion that "The disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages ": it's the opposite of a men's rights argument; which is not terribly surprising as Connell is pro-feminist. Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue for inclusion of other information from that source, that's up to you, but do it in it's own section. We have a cite (already in the article) that if not completely about, is broadly about the MRM and it's arguments. We have a sentence attributed to Farrell, that the cite backs up. I'd gladly gather opinions from the OR board, if you continue to protest. Also, I'd suggest not mindreading my motives such as :You are picking the parts of that paragraph that you think are about men's rights. Arkon (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing for the inclusion of that material. In fact I specifically agreed that the sentences should not be included. You are not getting my point. Maybe it is my fault, but perhaps you can do me the favour of reading my posts again and see if a second read-through helps. And then if you want to ask others by all means go ahead, but I can't imagine you are going to get a different answer from any experienced editor.

The article currently cites Connell for this phrase: "their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media". The relevant passage appears on page 6 of Connell's article, where it says "In the United States, where authors such as Warren Farrell (1993) and Christina Hoff Sommers (2000), purporting to speak on behalf of men and boys, bitterly accuse feminism of injustice. Men and boys, they argue, are the truly disadvantaged group and need supportive programs in education and health, in situations of family breakup, and so forth. These ideas have not stimulated a social movement, with the exception of a small-scale (though active and sometimes violent) “father’s rights” movement in relation to divorce. The arguments have, however, strongly appealed to the neoconservative mass media, which have given them international circulation." There is an explicit link here to men's rights and father's rights authors and groups, that is utterly missing in the sentence you would wish to include. Slp1 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep speaking in hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what I am suggesting. Maybe that's -my- fault. We have the current statement in the article:

• Warren Farrell cites evidence that men receive harsher prison sentences and are more likely sentenced to death in the United States

The portion of the text from the cite that I've referenced (Again, already in the article. Also, you neglect the fact that multiple such explicit links are made in that article, well, because it's about this topic.):

• But men are also the main targets of military violence and criminal assault, and many more men than women are imprisoned or executed.

So, we have the options of adding this as an additional cite to the Farrell sentence or even rewording the text and take it out of Farrell's voice. Arkon (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Slp1, I was one of those people "protecting" the inclusion of this information. I am charmed by your presentation of the issue, so I am also making a good faith effort to understand your view and cooperate with its reason. So, you are saying that this text does not belong here because Philip Davies is not a Men's Rights Activist and therefore what he says, regardless of its factual veracity and relevance to the Men's Rights Issue, is not about the Men's Rights Movement. Is that your point? If that is so, I would like to ask you to look at the entire article and suggest how a similar thing isn't happening in all the sections. It is flipping back and forth between discussing the issues and reporting views of representatives of the Men's Rights Movement. I have a problem particularly with the repeated occurrence of "Critics suggest/argue ..." etc. Because that discusses the issues not the Men's Rights Movement. I would not mind the entire article to be condensed into a simple list of Men's Rights Issues with reference to Warren Farrell, Herb Goldberg, and more contemporary spokes persons of the movement, such as Karen Straughan. But I am not sure where you stop? Do you allow Erin Pizzey views? And why not Philip Davies? On what basis would you exclude Philip Davies from the Men's Rights Movement, if he is clearly speaking very passionately and with preparation about a central issue of the Men's Rights Movement? Thanks. Gschadow (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think what he's saying, or at least the summary of what he's saying is that it is inappropriate to present statements and viewpoints of single individuals as being those generally held by a group of people, especially when that single individual is not a part of or associated with that movement. Ironlion45 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less exactly, Ironlion45 (though I admit had to read your comment several times to understand what you are getting at.). If you remove "especially".

Gshadown: per WP:OR, we cannot include the views or arguments of people who are neither MRAs nor speaking about the MRM or MR activism in this article; this is an article about the MRM and not an article where we debate (or try to prove-one way of the other) the issues that the MRM focus on by bringing in information about the "issue" without a specific reference to the men's rights movement. This is the policy, but I have also tried to explain above why this is actually of benefit to those who wish to present the MRM movement in as positive a light as possible. Looking back in the history you will find versions of this article in which MR claims were extensively "debunked" by statistics and references that had no reference to the MR movement either. Another couple of examples: in the Hansard document containing Philip Davies's speech, his arguments are critiqued by at least 3 other MPs; if we were to include his information then per WP:NPOV and fairly representing the source, we would also need to quote them and their views. Ditto Connell: if it is okay to cite him when he makes an argument that reasonates with MRAs, then per NPOV we would need to also cite him when he does not. Surely you can see where this would lead in terms of the article and why this policy makes total sense.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "I have a problem particularly with the repeated occurrence of "Critics suggest/argue ..." etc. Because that discusses the issues not the Men's Rights Movement", but if you find any references in the "critics say" sections that discuss the "issue" outside a discussion of the MRM or MRAs, then I would 100% support removing them. I cannot guarantee every reference because I haven't checked them all, but I would be very surprised if there are many, though.

Per NPOV, there is no way that this article is going to end up as a list of men's rights issues referencing only men's rights authors. That's what men's rights websites are for. This is an encyclopedia which has as a central tenet of NPOV meaning "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". There are lots of critical voices about this movement and their arguments in highly reliable sources, and these have to be reflected in this article.Slp1 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This article comes under mens rights etc not just the movement per se so it unrealistically limiting the scope of the topic.Now presumably you have read the whole link so beyond that you have no reasonable cause to revert. Pleasetry (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Pleasantry this article is about the movement it's not a list of issues. Unless there are reliable sources linking issues to the movement this article can't list them. That particular infor might be more pertinent to the Sentencing in England and Wales article--Cailil 12:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleasentry's inclusion of statistics about prison sentencing was discussed and rejected before. The two edits in question are almost identical (1 and 2) and good examples of synthesis. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does men's rights redirect to this article if it is only for the movement and why has it been changed between men's rights and men's rights movement before so I don't think that's a good enough reason to obstruct its inclusion. Pleasetry (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Moving a page, that's why. When a page is renamed, the previous title is automatically redirected to the new name. No point in using the redirect as an excuse to include WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not read all the discussion but seems to me the Men's Rights movement is not the Catholic Church -- it has no Pope to speak for it, nor even only one organization. Someone above seemed to be claiming the article is about the movement but not the issues of the movement -- ??????? I suggested in a new section that I write a detailed explanation of how domestic violence restraining order laws are unfair in California. The laws themselves are key, and can be quoted with essentially no need for any opinionating, like "California Family Code Section 6320 allows for domestic violence restraining orders to be issued when there is no allegation of violence" or "those accused of domestic violence are given only 5 days between the time they are notifed of the accusation and their court date" -- both of these statements can be proved with citations to California government web pages. Or, alternatively if someone thinks this is too much here, put a link here to another article? I do kind of think this page is being censored and distorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Feminist bias

"he men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it has identified as issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression. The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement. The men's rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe are biased towards women. The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist."

That's from the heading of the page, and is extremely biased, I suggest it being heavily re-edited to remove the feminist bias. Bumblebritches57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the record: editor has been notified of the article's probationary status. The complaint itself does not merit much attention; stating that the content is based on reliable sources should suffice for him that hath ears to hear. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Feminist bias and many WP:RS problems

I disagree with this idea that the bias does not deserve attention. This idea that suffice to claim "reliable sources" is flawed. When looking at, and reading, the sources cited under footnote 3 for instance, it becomes very clear that the sources itself are biased. Obviously, if you take any controversial subject, you can find sources that disagree. The question is if an article about one movement should be presented describing the movement and its ideas fairly and then in one section, one can describe the criticism also and still have WP:NPOV. But here negative language is delivered with weasel-words WP:WEASEL right at the start. This is not resolved by just piling on more and more biased sources, which no doubt are plentiful as the gender discourse in media and academia is entirely hogged by feminist POV. WP:BIASED needs to be considered especially carefully.

Here are the POV weasel-words WP:WEASEL which do need to be edited. I am discussing them here before going into the text and make changes.

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement." -- anything can be considered anything by some group. Evolution theory is also "considered" flawed by some group of creationists. And there is a long list of books one can quote for "reliable sources" to back up that statement, yet it still does not belong in the opener of the article on Evolution. Also, why use the passive voice "is considered", it conveys a bias implying "everyone" or "any sane mind consider it ...". Such statements, if they are mentioned in the article at all, ought to be attributed by some delineation of what group is doing the considering.

"The movement has been involved in a variety of areas that they believe are biased towards women." -- yes, the movement holds these beliefs, that is OK to state as a belief. But "they" is not a congruent pronoun for "the movement ..." (number disagreement) and I submit that "they" reveals the negative POV of the editor who introduced this phrasing "... that they believe ...". It needs to be edited.

"The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars ..." -- while there certainly are many academics who have so critiqued the movement (obviously, because "gender studies" is academic institutionalized feminism), "scholars" does not clearly delineate the group of people holding such opinion. It appears to intend to convey a consensus, as if all scholars would hold this same opinion. However, this is at odds with WP:RS/AC.

"The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, ..." -- this "and others" is irrelevant fluff. There is always some group of "others" who may hold some view, like "some say" this is a patently unattributed, un-sourced, and redundant statement.

"sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist." -- this again a weasel inside the passive voice, the sources are all biased and therefore unreliable as a statement about the MRM, they are simply sources supporting an opinion. But it is redundant and irrelevant to sprinkle a Misplaced Pages article with accusations made by opponents. Here, let's look at those "sources" one by one;

4. Glenn, Sacks. "Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men's Movement". glennsacks.com. Retrieved 29 July 2013.

not a reliable source, it's a website, WP:QUESTIONABLE

5. Potok, M; Schlatter S (Spring 2012). "Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women". Intelligence Report (Southern Poverty Law Center) 145. Retrieved 2013-03-07.

once again, an Internet opinion piece, WP:QUESTIONABLE.

6. Chris Beasley (20 May 2005). Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. SAGE Publications. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7619-6979-2. Retrieved 6 May 2013.

This may qualify, yet it is still a biased source WP:BIASED, because the author's profile clearly identifies her as a feminist.

7. Kimmel, Michael; Kaufman, Michael (1997). "Weekend Warriors". In Mary R. Walsh. Women, Men and Gender. Yale University Press. p. 407. ISBN 978-0-300-06938-9.

Kimmel is a feminist and this particular book chapter starting with its title, is strikingly biased, evidenced by its derogatory language.

8. Menzies 2007, p. 71. in Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B. Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9.

again, a book self-identified as feminist, this is clearly WP:BIASED.

In conclusion, from the outset, the MRM article is very openly overrun by statements which use WP:WEASEL rhetoric to introduce WP:BIASED even if ostensibly academic WP:RS/AC and therefore not reliable sources WP:RS to stand for any factual objective statements about the subject of this article. The correct way of designating all those unattributed opinions behind passive voice, "scholars and other" is to put it in active voice and say "feminists believe ...", "feminist scholars have described the movement as misogynist", etc. Gschadow (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The crux of your argument seems to fall under this phrase: When looking at, and reading, the sources cited under footnote 3 for instance, it becomes very clear that the sources itself are biased - WP doesnt require the sources to be neutral, only a neutral reflection of what the sources say. If scholars critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist, and that criticism composes a vast majority of the literature written about the movement (which is the case), then the lede is an accurate reflection of what the RS say. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do scholars as a group critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist, or is it a subset of scholars who do so? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The preponderance of scholars who study this issue critique the MRM and describe the movement as misogynist. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this what we mean to say in the article? And are we implying a form of academic consensus on the material. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes to both. Allow me to quote User:Slp1 from one of the last times this discussion came around: Sorry, no, you are quite wrong about this. WP will not marginalize what seems to be the mainstream opinion of scholars (by attributing/saying "some" etc) until it is clear that is a minority opinion or disputed in some way. For example, we don't write: "Dr. X says penicillin kills bacteria. Dr. Y does too". We survey the academic opinion and summarize the mainstream view (e.g. penicillin kills bacteria) and if there are minority views summarize them in proportion to their importance. But the problem with this discussion here is that nobody is proposing any sources that dispute the fact that academics do critique men's rights use of the the statistics/research that is available. We can only start having this conversation when academic sources are provided that actually agree with the men's rights activists' interpretation of the matter. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Good, you know exactly what I'm talking about, unfortunately in that case, and this case your view is blatantly in violation of WP:RS/AC and at the end of the last discussion where this was brought up, the term some was added before the term Scholars. We have no source that demonstrates what scholars as a group view of the MRM, we only have sources which explain views of the individual scholars. To imply an argument stronger than that is WP:OR since we don't have a measure of the scholarly community as a whole. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, there was no consensus for the added "some" in front of the term scholars. Again to quote the same user from the same discussion: If there is no serious dispute about a topic, all we do as editors is to summarize the mainstream opinion see- WP:NPOV). Doing so is not by any means synthesis. To date the academic sources provided all do critique the men's rights position and that is what is reflected in the text. Until academic sources are found to that support their views, this is the way it has to stay per NPOV.. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You can quote Slp1 as much as you like, however, his argument still doesn't fly. Some was added before scholars, and while there wasn't explicit consensus, the term stayed in the article. You can collect as many individual sources as you like saying the MRM is misogynist, however a statement that scholars as a group do so requires a source that says it. Without doing so you are engaging in WP:Synth. WP:AC/RS is explicit on this point. To quote the guideline "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." You're argument is that since there is no academic source against it, then Academic Consensus can be reached. This assumes that scholars who may not have published works share your view. You have no source that supports this position. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My quoting of Slp1 is to note we've been around this block before and consensus reached, not necessarily WP policy. However, WP policy states that articles are to be a reflection of reliable published sources, so whether hypothetical unpublished scholars may hold an opinion of something but have not written anything is largely irrelevant. Additionally, the word "some" did not stay in the article and it has not been in the article for many months. In fact, I am having trouble finding a previous revision where it was in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Kyohyi, I think that adding "some" before "scholar" (or whatever other noun to represent the attribution) is not going to fix this. These are all arguments about supposed "majorities" or "preponderance" etc., which can not be a useful point. Anti-MRM sentiment is clearly in the majority of "gender studies" scholars, that's not the problem here. This is why I disagree with PearlSt82 who claims that this discussion had been had and is resolved by "consensus". It is not. Nothing regarding a discussion over whether to say "scholars" or "some scholars" is relevant, because the quantification is irrelevant. The point is WP:INDY. I would hope that the reverting PearlSt82, will show some collaborative spirit by responding to the subject of the admonishment in WP:BIASED and the good ideas of WP:INDY. Gschadow (talk)

@Pearl You're right we should reflect reliable published sources, and what reliable published source says that scholars as a group have this opinion. The two sections where I added "Some" were Domestic Violence, and Health, in both cases the word "some" has stayed, but the term Academics has dropped off. In domestic violence it became some critics, and health became just some have with no qualifier on to position of who. So, yes they are still there, but the surrounding text has changed.

@Gschadow Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Misplaced Pages is a reflection of what published sources say. Reliable, biased sources are still reliable. And their content can be added as long as it is qualified. I don't really think Independent sources are going to be found on this subject. The level of contention in this area is huge, and I'm pretty sure the only ones interested in wading into it are people who already have their own biases. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, I did some digging - while not currently in the article, but from "Men's Movements and Male Subjectivity" by Ruzankina, E. A. in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia. Summer2010, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p8-16. 9p states: "As researchers note, the mythopoeic and conservative men’s movements have an obvious negative vector, that is, they try to prevent the development of social trends promoted by the radical feminist movement. ". Would you consider any philosophical difference between "scholars" and "researchers", or would you support changing the word 'scholars' to 'researchers' as appears in the lede? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the source you just listed looks like something that this article needs. The use of "some sectors" has bothered me, and maybe we could use this source to expand a bit as to what sectors "some sectors" refers to. This source clearly supports the use of 'researchers', and at the moment I'm undecided whether the difference between "scholars" and "researchers" is significant enough. I suppose at the moment either term would suffice, if I come up with something that I believe to be a valid reason against it i'll bring it up. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - I've added the ref to the article at the end of that sentence and I can use it to expand a little more in the body when I have some more time. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear PearlSt82, you are too focused on the numbers. Scholarship isn't a voting game. When you speak about "preponderance of scholars who study the issue" you use an implied voting logic: if you were taking a poll and find that more people classified as "scholars who study the issue" side against the MRM, that sidesteps WP:WEASEL and WP:BIASED and WP:RS/AC. According to this logic, you could even claim that MRM is a fringe group (WP:FRINGE), and claim that the voices of the members of this group have no right to stand without the allegation of being vastly overruled by some consensus of "scholars who study this field". You are committing a group-authority fallacy here, blinded to the fact that what constitute the pool of "scholars who study the issue" are those "gender studies" people the vast majority of whom are self-declared academic feminists. This means, your entire pool of "scholars" is biased. You have decided to wholesale revert my edits, claiming that the generalizing weasel language is alright? How about some acknowledgement that passive voice and weasels is simply not good style? Your reference to earlier dispute do not apply to my edits. I did not intend to marginalize the critics at all, I was even inclined to say that the MRM has "many" critics (but withdrew this point because I had no WP:RS and it would be WP:OR/SYNTH for me to introduce the word "many". The point is not to marginalize, but to show that the MRM is a minority group among the total field of gender-conscious studies, but that you can not claim that "gender studies" feminists (the overwhelming majority) are the ones who can claim an objective truth because they are themselves not independent parties to the dispute. I think a sincere consideration of WP:IS is required. Gschadow (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you edited against previous consensus and much of the language you inserted violates WP:NPOV - describing the backlash as "mere", and removal of the word "scholars" from the description of critics. That just isn't a reflection of the RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you "sorry" about? What "consensus" are you referring to? The words I pointed out above are clearly weasel words. They clearly need to be edited. The point of leaving them as is is not supported by saying that I am violating NPOV by removing weasels and explicitly stating what they intend to say. Example, my use of the word "mere" is in line to what the meaning of backlash is. Explain to me: what is the purpose of this backlash sentence if not to call attention to the fact that the movement is a mere reactionary to feminism? If not this, what is the point of this sentence in the lead? You explain, don't mumble about NPOV, as it stands, the NPOV burden of proof is clearly about this bias which you are protecting by your wholesale denial and reverting. Gschadow (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus I am referring to is the one established the previous times this issue was discussed. The words you pointed out are not weasel words as they are a reflection of the RS. The RS describe MRM as a backlash to feminism and that's how the sentence reads. Additionally, scholars (ie - people who have PhDs in gender studies and conduct studies published in academic gender studies journals) describe the movement as misogynist. That's how the sentence reads. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Was the drive-by tagging of WP:WEASEL really necessary? To quote that policy page, However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. - which is the case for this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

PearlSt82, please refrain from accusing other editors of "drive by" or whatever. The edits by User:Konveyor Belt were in response to a current discussion on here, clearly not drive-by. You have not been accused of "drive by reverting". Let's keep this collaborative. A good start would be you showing that you actually consider the issue and not just deny it, and then offer an edit to resolve the issue rather than reverting and denying it.

I'm not "drive by" reverting because I'm discussing my rationale here... PearlSt82 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The words I put in bold in my discussion before my edit, are most definitely weasel words. They literally match the examples of WP:WEASEL, you can't claim that they are not. What is the rationale to leave them unedited? What specifically do they mean? Why don't you edit an improvement into the article that changes these attributions to something more clear, that does not match the WP:WEASEL examples?

Again, the problem is not quantification, the problem is the vague description of the group who is holding these anti-MRM opinions. It's not "all scholars", not "some", any quantification is irrelevant. But what word other than "critics" is there? It's redundant to say "Critics criticize the MRM". So what nature are those critics? IMO, the most accurate way to say it is "Feminist scholars" -- but I'm afraid that would not fly. How about "Gender studies scholars"?

Finally, I think the issue we are having here should be made explicit in the article. The article not actually reference the big dispute, and clearly describe the disdain over the MRM in feminist "gender studies" circles. I don't mean that to incite dispute here, I am saying that the dispute on the Talk page is actually the noteworthy subject of the MRM article itself. Gschadow (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The words are not weasel words and your rationale for saying so is that the sources are not scholarly - in your own words: "(obviously, because "gender studies" is academic institutionalized feminism)". Saying "feminist scholars" or "gender studies scholars" would not be appropriate as this is a gender studies related issue, so only gender studies scholars would be writing about it. There is no evidence in any of the RS to support that these scholars do not hold a consensus within the scholarly community, and the best way for you to WP:PROVEIT would be to find a number scholarly publications which agree with the MRM position and integrate those within the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? The bolded words are most definitely weasel words, have you looked it up? They are right there. You can deny it all you want, they are still weasel words. And as far as the consensus goes, do note WP:RS/AC "Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." So, where is your source stating that there is "academic consensus"? "Gender studies" are not the only scholarship that has a say on the issue, of course not. "Gender studies" is entirely feminist, as you can see from your Misplaced Pages articles, where it comprises "women's studies" and Men's studies which is expressly "As a relatively new field of study, men's studies was formed largely in response to, and as a critique of, an emerging men's rights movement, and as such, has been taught in academic settings only since the 1970s. In many universities, men's studies is a correlation to women's studies or part of a larger gender studies program, and as such its faculty tends to be sympathetic to, or engaged in, advocacy of feminist politics." You see, thus, that whatever "scholarly" consensus you are referring to is entirely WP:BIASED. "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..." -- you do not seem to entertain these considerations that ought to go in. And no, I do not need to add sources to the article, because we are not discussing the issues here, we are addressing the real existing bias in this article. Gschadow (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring this very important part of WP:WEASEL: However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. . For WP:RS/AC please see my comment above regarding Ruzankina's article. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, and thank you for reproducing it here; where do you attribute these opinions to the source? What you are defending is WP:OR, the sources do not say what scholars and what others, the piling on of partially WP:QUESIONABLE and certainly WP:BIASED sources is creating original research with the conclusion justifying the weasel words. But that is not proper. The passage you quote specifically asks that the weasel-sounding words are themselves attributed to the source. And you still have not answered Kyohyi who asked you to produce reliable source for the specific generalizations which you are defending by defending the obvious weasel words. Gschadow (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is illuminating that, at the beginning of this discussion, Gschadow makes a comparison of this article to creationism and evolution. The fact that his comparison is exactly backwards points to the source of the problem with the whole argument. Let me quote "anything can be considered anything by some group. Evolution theory is also "considered" flawed by some group of creationists. And there is a long list of books one can quote for "reliable sources" to back up that statement, yet it still does not belong in the opener of the article on Evolution.. Seeking to compare scholars (here on this article) with the creationists is entirely inappropropriate and exactly reversed. The accurate parallel is scholars in evolutionary studies. Thus the equivalent phrase would be "Creationism is considered flawed by scholars"; there are multiple sources for this too, and it is entirely appropriate that this fact should be in the creationism article (as it is). Of equally little doubt is the fact that creationist editors on that page bleat on about "biased" sources and "weasel words", just as pro-homeopathy editors do on the homeopathy page, pro-cold fusion editors on the cold fusion page and holocaust deniers do on the holocaust denial page. It is a pointless exercise however, because WP seeks to summarize the highest quality reliable sources available, particularly academic scholarly viewpoints, whether or not some editors consider them "biased".

The solution is to come up with some academic scholarly sources that actually talk positively about this movement, then a word like "some scholars" might become appropriate. I have looked extensively and found nothing. Other editors have been asked over and over again, but nothing is ever produced. Note that the specific "academic consensus" discussion is a red herring as nowhere in this article is an academic consensus claimed (as it is in creationism, Cold fusion, Aids denialism for example. Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not backwards. I have pointed out that you are welcome to even declare the MRM a fringe opinion by numbers. That is not the point. It is entirely fine to say that "The majority of gender studies scholars reject the MRM and all of its claims as bogus, and agree that MRAs are perverse wife-beaters and deadbeat dads looking for excuses." As long as you attribute this statement. However you still need to attribute the statement and not use weasel words. If you intend to say "all scholars agree" you need to cite a reliable source which says "all scholars agree" and not prove this POV by piling on references of individuals who hold this opinion. That is simply a formal point of proper Misplaced Pages editing. Piling on sources is WP:OR nothing more. This is also why I do not have to bring in any other source. My point right now is not to defend the movement, my point is to address the real existing bias and the violations of proper Misplaced Pages editing policies. Gschadow (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When editors resort to strawman arguments and incorrect (and disproved) assertions about WP policies it is quite clear that there is no point in furthering the discussion. Find some academic sources. Until then we summarize what we have. Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You have no sources justifying the weasel words. What's so hard to understand here? Funny thing is, Misplaced Pages readers pick that up, so why do you resist editing weasel word? Gschadow (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the term "scholars" is a generalizing shorthand for a specific list of scholars and the disciplines in which tehy are active. For this article it would be appropriate to specify e.g. "(a number of) (academic) sociologists (and/or gender studies' scholars)" or something similar. This way, it would be clear that it is not a matter of all/some/few or other weasel-quantifiers; if consensus is that it must be a weasel-quantifier, then I suggest "...scholars that have studied the issue ... " or "...scholars whose field includes the study of social phenomena" (which would exclude the penicillin guys) - however, a more precise indicator can be given. This is in accordance with the guidelines, which state: ".... 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...."

BTW, the same guidelines also state: " ...Self-published /.../ sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field ...", which should allow quoting Men's Human Rights Movement pages like A Voice for Men, or other similar sources. There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in the guidelines and policies, and several editors must be well aware of that, since much of the discussion here is meta-discussion based on policy interpretation.

T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

For proper WP:WEIGHT the self-published sources should be discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources. Otherwise, editors here could pick and choose whatever tidbits they wished to emphasize. It is better to let the media pick which tidbits are important. Once they've done that the citation is to the secondary source rather than the primary one.

Regarding "scholars", general English language practice is that the context is understood. Of course men's rights scholars are not studying antibiotics or engineering or whatever. They are scholars in the context of the topic. There is no need to say "scholars who have studied the issue". Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So is your guideline quote better than my guideline quote? If so, by what guideline? Or can questions like these be decided by a mere dictum? Can I use a dictum, then?

FYI, IMO editing simply _is_ the process of picking and choosing whatever tidbits one wishes to emphasize; only, for good reasons, of course. I would suggest that the editors, not media, should decide what is important; after that, one should of course look for sources as reliable as required - but beginning with what is opined about an issue in the media instead of beginning with the issue itself is of course to put the cause before the heart. Secondary sources are fine, if there are any, but there may be material that is only available from primary sources, and then editors will have to do with those, e.g. if there is material there that is not covered by the media or other secondary sources.

Regarding "scholars", you'll have to take that one up with Pearl, who introduced the "who have studied the issue" qualification. Perhaps English not s/he's first language, too, is. There may perhaps not be any need to use that exact qualifier, however, since this topic is brought up again and again, it needs something, in order to reach a more permanent consensus. Continual strife is a symptom of imbalance.

Now, the argument has been presented that balance does not mean equal time for all and sundry; e.g., Holocaust deniers do not get to present the Holocaust. The question for many here is, of course, who are the deniers here, and who are the ones affected by denial. The entire issue of MHRM revolves around this question; therefore it is a quite sensitive issue, IMHO, and it is equally sensitive to determine who gets to say what. Neither the MHRMAs nor those of any opposing parties, if there are any, may justly claim that their view should be regarded as the standard by which this issue is to be resolved; a third position is needed for that. But perhaps all that is needed at the moment just is less heavy-handedness, and a touch of sensitivity instead.

83.109.182.29 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is,IP83, while everybody wishes to be sensitive, the fact is that this is an encyclopedia that has, over the years, developed a series of policy and guidelines about articles should be written. This include the fact that we are not seeking to determine the truth, decide who are the "deniers" or finding some sort of balance between the views of editors, but simply to summarize what the reliable, secondary sources say on the topic. In this context,Secondary sources are much to be preferred. It's that simple really.Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, what is your view on other policies and how they relate ot WP:RS, specifically "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:POINT

/.../- do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published - do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight /.../Impartial tone: /.../ Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. /.../ Making necessary assumptions /.../ When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AVOID /.../Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AVOID /.../If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both. /.../ /.../A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views /.../We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense#Use_common_sense /.../Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. /.../ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles And last, but not least: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" ? T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Aside from some of the tendentious synth/OR that creeps in to the article (and talk pages) from time to time, I don't see much of a problem with NPOV language in the article's body as it currently reads. Is this tag necessary on the article?PearlSt82 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV-tag. WHeimbigner (talk · contribs) is welcome to explain his reasoning here, drive-by tagging is discouraged. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the tag is back, and I've got to say large parts feel like a NPOV nightmare. I see a lot of generalization and very negative views presented. Well sourced, but it still feels like an attack on the movement rather than an article. It may well be that the men's rights movement is made up of women-hating folks that are fine with marital rape and believe that women hold the power in all aspects of life. In fact this article would certainly lead me to believe that. But I've got to believe that is not a valid characterization of the movement as a whole. Are folks who advocate for a greater male child custody rights a part of this movement? If so, are we claiming they favor marital rape and think the deck is in all ways stacked against men? Are the educational researchers worried that elementary schools are leaving boys behind part of this movement? If so, are we making similar claims? It certainly reads that way.

I'm unclear why this article suffers from these problems given the huge number of eyes that are apparently on it, but suffer it does. Given the eyes on it and the editing restrictions I've no idea how this could be fixed, but it really is a significant problem. Not sure NPOV is the problem, but it's certainly troubling. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Opps, was a weasel tag, not NPOV. I'm going to throw the NPOV tag too. This thing is a huge mess of generalizations, nearly all of them negative. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources present the MRM in a negative light. Misplaced Pages is to be a reflection of the reliable sources. We aren't claiming anything that isn't present in the (many) sources cited on the material. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly I found a lot of sources last night that don't including Newsweek etc. But in any case, the main issue I have is that a wide variety of groups/issues are identified and then it is made to sound like all these groups hold all these opinions. We are generalizing to the point of absurdity. Looking at the feminism article (which is somewhat unfair for any number of reasons) I see language like "Feminist attitudes to female sexuality have taken a few different directions." and "Feminist views of pornography range...", "Since the late nineteenth century some feminists have allied with socialism, whereas others have criticized socialist ideology for being insufficiently concerned about women's rights" etc. In other words, the acknowledgement that it is a wide movement with often very divergent views. We're missing that here as we implicitly ascribe all the views listed here to all the groups. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That I believe is a problem with what the sources say, differentiation between parts of the MRM isn't heavily covered. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There are indeed sectors of the overarching Men's movement (which is not to be confused with the more specific Men's Rights Movement, the subject of this article) which do have separate articles such as Fathers' rights movement, Men's liberation, and Mythopoetic men's movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If we are claiming these are independent things, why do we use "men's rights groups" and have a picture of folks that are a part of a "fathers' rights group" in this article? Further, why don't we discuss how these things are related to the MRM? Do we have no reliable sources? I don't see how your view of the article with respect to these other topics is actually reflected in the article. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We aren't claiming these things. The first sentence of the article reads: The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement.. For this reason, comparisons between this article and Feminism are largely unwarranted - a more appropriate comparison (though still not accurate, for a number of reasons) would between the broader Men's movement and Feminism - or alternately, the more specific Men's rights movement and the more specific Radical feminism. To talk turkey, what specific text are you referring in this article to that you feel is too broad, generalizing, and not a reflection of the RS? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of it? If you look at the individual topics I see things like "Men's rights organizations..." If this article isn't covering Men's rights, why does that matter? If we aren't covering the father's rights issue, why do we have a topic here? I'd prefer to see a clearer explanation of how the MRM relates to the Men's movement, Father's movement etc. I see "Fathers' rights activists..." with no mention of the MRM under adoption. How do those activists and the MRM relate to each other? The article implies that all "Fathers' rights activists" are part of the MRM (otherwise why would they be listed here?) The relationship, if any, should be clarified rather than being left for the reader to assume. Sorry for the ramble, crazy day today and no time to spend on this. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the sentences regarding the father's rights movement, specifically The men's rights movement is concerned with a wide variety of issues, some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers' rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues. and Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups., the article notes that the Fathers' rights movement is both a subset of the Men's Rights Movement, and thus has its own article where its positions are explained in more depth, and that the interest in Father's rights is of key interest to many in the MRM. Perhaps it would be better to merge some of the Father's rights topics under one section rather than have separate sections for Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, etc, but summarize in a way that doesn't duplicate the Fathers rights article, and thus remove some of the verbiage that is unique to the father's rights movement and not the MRM? Either way you look at it, there is a pretty big overlap between the two groups, and I think their relationship is sufficiently explained both here and that article. For the rest of the MRM platforms, these are commonly held beliefs by the Men's Rights Movement as a whole and there is little divergence between the issues (ie - group X is solely in favor of education but disagrees about marital rape, group Y is concerned with marital rape but not education) like their is with an overarching Feminism, or even an overarching Men's movement, which includes pro-feminist men. The Men's Rights Movement is explicitly described by the RS as being a misogynist reactionary backlash movement to feminism, and there really isn't anything in the RS to suggest any divergent splinter groups within the MRM that disagree with one another in the way you are describing, aside from arguably the father's rights movement. If you take a look at some of the more popular MRM sites like A Voice for Men, Return of Kings or any of the Reddit subcommunities (or even some of the talk page archives for this article where POV pushing is at its highest), these sentiments are more or less expressed across the board. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As for its relationship to the overall Men's movement, there is an entire paragraph that says The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics. The leaders of the men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity. In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement. Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on disadvantages and oppression of men that they have identified. In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace. - in what ways do you feel this is lacking? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, let's start with the part of the article quoted by PearlSt82. I have the following question:
  • What are we saying the relationship is between the MRM and "men's rights activists"? Are all men's rights activists members of the MRM? Would/could someone in the "men's movement" be a "men's rights activist?" without being a member of the MRM?

I think a large obstacle to understanding this article is that we have a whole bunch of terms that are easily confused. "Men's rights movement" and "men's movement" being an obvious one. While those of you familiar with the field and terminology might see a major difference there, to an outsider it is hard to follow/distinguish. I'd say the article is guilty of using "terms of art" without carefully drawing a stark contrast and noting the potential for confusion. A diagram showing the relationship between these groups might help?

Also, the name of the thing, MRM, implies that anyone speaking about men's rights is a member of the MRM. We can't do anything about the name, (RS use it, we're stuck with it), but perhaps we can carefully clarify what we mean. The use of "radical feminism" makes its relationship to feminism quite clear. But MRM doesn't do that. So we need to spell it out clearly, early and often.

Another large issue is that we are claiming a lot of things about the MRM without identifying groups that are a part of the MRM. We generalize at every turn but don't give examples. Are there any notable MRM organizations that have (or should have) Misplaced Pages pages? If so, we need to link to them. If not, we should still list them and perhaps link to their web presence. As it stands, the article feels like a rant against a group we don't even affirm actually exists.

Again, the main problem here is that we are generalizing like mad. A careful reading of the article may be clear (though I dispute that as I carefully read it, but needed the explanations in this discussion to understand large chunks), but without that careful reading things are much less clear. It needs to be abundantly clear how the MRM relates to things it has "spawned" (as spawn would imply that such a movement is a sub-group, and apparently we aren't claiming that the father's rights folks hold most/all the views that the MRM does?) Hobit (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• • To be more clear. Is the MRM a subset of the Men's movement? If not is the union of the two the null set? How about Father's rights activists and the MRM? What are we claiming the relationship is? In the lede we have "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement." But we also have "The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement." which implies pretty strongly that the men's movement is pro-feminist and the men's rights movement is anti-feminist and therefore one is not a part of the other. Which is it? Do RSes use these terms in consistent ways? My quick reading indicates that they don't. So we need to get a single taxonomy (ideally commonly used and as clear as possible) and use it while explaining that the taxonomy isn't universally used. Not doing this not only causes confusion, but creates a NPOV issue as we seem to be labeling a bunch of different groups as being a part of the MRM when apparently that isn't the intent. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Men's movement is an overarching term which applies to any interest or activist groups that relate directly to Men's interests. From the lede of that article: The men's movement is a social movement consisting of groups and organizations of men who focus on gender issues and whose activities range from self-help and support to lobbying and activism. Major movements within the men's movement include the men's liberation movement, profeminist men's movement, mythopoetic men's movement, men's rights movement, and the Christian men's movement, most notably represented by the Promise Keepers. The movement is predominantly Western and emerged in the 1960s and 70s.. The MRM is decidedly anti-feminist, and the Men's Movement (overall) encompasses this group of people, as well as other types of men's movements such as profeminists and mythopoetics. I would say the RS are pretty consistent in describing them this way, though it is rather unfortunate they share similar names. Father's rights are a subset of MRM, and while its possible that there are Father's rights groups who don't express views consistent with the rest of the MRM (perhaps in some of the Indian examples provided), the two groups typically overlap a great deal. MRM members and Men's rights activists are one in the same. Would a sentence at the top saying "This article is about the Men's rights movement and not to be confused with the overarching Men's movement" or something similar help?

As for notable individual groups, this is one of the problems of the RS - much of the activity is on forums and blogs and not covered in RS. For example, there was recently a self-described Historic Men's Rights Rally in Toronto that was touted as a huge success by the Men's Rights Movement in an article on A Voice For Men (I tried to link it directly but Misplaced Pages gave me a message saying its on the blacklist, making me unable to link directly to it, but if you google the phrase "men's rights protest toronto success", it is the first result), but it only seems to be covered by Men's Rights blogs inflating its historic importance, and feminist blogs making fun of them, and seems to be completed ignored by any local news source. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. That is a lot more clear. That said, some things still seem contradictory. The Father's rights article doesn't mention most of the MRM issues. To lump them in with the MRM seems wrong (unless we've got RSes that do that). Also "The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement." reads as if the MRM and the men's movement are non-overlapping yes? I do think the sentence you propose at the top would help a lot, but I think we actually need a section explaining how these various groups interelate. If we can't find reasonable RSes for that, we can at least explain how the article uses the terms. I'm probably done editing WP for today, but thought I'd at least address those issues. Thanks again, Hobit (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• What are peoples thoughts on merging the Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, Marriage Strike, Paternity Fraud and Reproductive rights under one "Father's rights" section, and trimming down some of the text so there is less overlap with the FRM article? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• That would help, mainly because it could let us make clear that while the MRM is concerned with father's rights, not all father's rights folks are part of the MRM. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, isn't this a simple exercise in Venn diagramming? There is the universe of men and women; some men are actively engaged in gender issues (Men's movement); some members of the men's movement agree with the feminist analysis of gender issues, some disagree; in both thtese camps there are people adressing issue X, Y ... amongst which are family issues; of these, some are MGTOW's, and some or not. Of the nots, some are into reproductive rights (for which one does not need to be a father, but may be concerned with adoption, reproductive health etc.), and some of these again are already fathers (paternity, fathers' rights, custody etc.). Issues would be wider (roles, sexuality etc) or narrower (rape, violence etc) aspects of the behaviour and expectations etc. of men and women. IOW, wouldn't these divisions yield to a little analysis? Or not? T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe? I think the trick here is to make it clear the MRM is A) a specific thing; B) not everyone who has overlapping views with the MRM is part of the MRM; not all views listed as being part of the MRM are held by everyone who is part of the MRM. As noted, our reliable sources paint a pretty negative picture of the MRM and it is problematic to not draw lines as clearly as we can. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the comments here are helpful; for example, I hadn't thought that it wouldn't be clear that men's rights activists/advocates are part of the men's rights movement. To me (and it seems to the reliable sources) the key words are "men's rights"... this term is used in variety of different (but more or less synonymous) formulations (groups, movement, advocates, activists, organizations, websites). To answer your comment Hobit, there are actually lots of articles and books describing the men's movement and its various subgroups (which we are using as sources here), but I agree some of the phrasing can be cleaned up (in your specific example, the contrast is actually between the "pro-feminist" men's movement grouping and the "men's rights" men's movement grouping, rather than trying to suggest that the men's movement is pro-feminist.

I think it would be good to put some of the subsections together, but I would actually suggest getting rid of anything that is simply sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights movement. While there are some sources that see the fathers' rights movement as a subset of the men's rights movement, most sources see it as a separate but related, overlapping movement- exactly like the Venn diagram described above!!! (e.g. ) I've suggested this before, but I think the article will be stronger if we limit our sources to specifically to those describing men's rights viewpoints (rather than those describing the viewpoints fathers' rights activists). There are good quality sources out there about the MRM and their views on issues to do with marriage/children/divorce etc, and in my view it is best to stick to those. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you could come up with--I think it could help. I do think we need to draw lines as clearly as possible. We shouldn't be tarring groups by stating that "men's rights" groups mostly believe X or Y without clearly defining what we mean by that term. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded; particularly if this also includes what various MRHMA's mean by this and that tterm. It is by the differing views on various issues that one establishes sets of activists here. So, for the article to be of encyclopedic value, the content of these beliefs should constitute the ccore of information, with style marks and other third party evaluations as commentary. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I will take these as a go ahead for a few changes. I'll start with the obvious ones. T (IP83) it looks like that you might need to consult this policy WP:PSTS and WP:OR more generally. WP generally prefers secondary sources (ie third parties), rather than the original sources, and we cannot as editors "establish sets of activists here". That would constitute original research.Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I take it that you will present your changes here for discussion? The way I read the discussions over mere single terms it appears that there is little here that is obvious. T (me) has researched policies extensively, but in the overall picture, what seems to be the aim of Misplaced Pages is that it should be encyclopedic and informative; the lesser corollaries are aids to this goal; IOW, they are not the end-all and be-all of any article, they do not trump higher principles and should therefore be used with discretion. Anyone who uses them like a hammer will merely detract from the quality of the article.

This is why I reccommend a (careful and perhaps sparing, and in any case very specific) use of primary sources, even in, say, very hateful cases like "Mein Kampf" - it doesn't do to just say that it is a badly written book of evil ideas that noboby should read; for an article on MK to be informative, one has to refer to actual badly written evil ideas in MK first, in order to critique.

Grouping things according to their properties is not so much "OR" as it is "thinking", against which I have so far not found any WP policy; it is how people identify natural kinds and other entities we find it relevant to pick out and describe. Until someone comes along who has direct insight into reality, it remains an editorial choice, if not a duty, to decide which items to group together in an article and which not. However, do not read to much into a Venn diagram - it was meant as a tool for structuring the discussion _here on the talk page_, not necessarily the article. I'll of course not insist on any particular method for that; I do, however, put it forward again as a potentially useful tool, since it would centre the discussion on actual traits of actual groups, and thereby perhaps facilitating reaching a consensus, if only based on mere facts. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that content that is sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights activists should be removed. I was about to delete the adoption section when I saw that it had been expanded with a reference that discusses fathers' rights activists' efforts to prevent third-party adoption of their children . Didn't we just agree to remove information sourced as the opinion of fathers' rights activists or am I missing something? The second source is Farrell opining about a woman's obligation to notify the biological father of her pregnancy. What does this have to do with adoption and how can we know that Farrell's view (i.e., a primary source) of pregnancy (and adoption?) is representative? I think that we need to rethink the article's laundry list layout and the selective use of primary sources (e.g., describing Farrell's opinion on prison sentences and pregnancy but leaving out his opinion on rape). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the issues section, 17 are named. Six fall under Father's rights (Adoption, Child Custody, Divorce, Parental Abduction, Paternity Fraud, Reproductive Rights), five deal with governmental and institutional structure (Governmental structures, Education, Conscription, Prison, Social Security), three seem to be positions taken contrary to the feminist positions (Rape, DV, female privilege). That leaves health, marriage strike and anti-dowry laws - health and marriage both overlap with the fathers rights and instutitional stuff, and anti-dowry laws seems to be a primarily Indian specific issue. Perhaps a lot of these related issues can be merged under one section? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Two (parental abduction and anti-dowry laws) of the 17 subsections are sourced to little more than primary sources. Multiple subsections are interrelated and overlap (marriage strike and divorce, custody and divorce, reproductive rights and adoption etc.) The female privilege subsection is one more repetitive bullet point in the laundry list; the relation to feminism section already states "They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women." Many subsections consist of two sentences. The list of 17 (shooting for 34 if two sentences require their own subsections) issues is less than ideal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could condense it to two issues - Fathers Rights and Institutional issues (I'm sure theres a better phrase for this), move the issues that are contrary positions to feminism into the "Relationship to feminism" section, and move the anti-dowry stuff to a separate "MRM In India" section outside of the issues header?PearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Section misses the point

The Domestic Violence section is very weak. The main gripe many men have with the Domestic Violence issue is false accusations of domestic violence, not that women are beating up men and men don't have shelters (I do kind of agree with the idea of shelters -- because if the man defends himself he goes to jail -- but it's not the main way the zealot feminists are harming innocent men)

A new section should deal with the unfair, extremely unfair, aspects of domestic violence laws in the most extreme states - like Calirornia where I am from, have been falsely accused, and nearly ruined as a result. - I know individual horror stories are considered original research -- but the article can be written by reference to the actual laws, which will also give men a good primer for how to fight such false accusations, and compare how Domestic Violence courts have rules that guarantee the defendant will not get due process as due process has been traditionally understood. '

Does anyone want to see an edit? I can write it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.124 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there's already an article on "Domestic violence against men" - why not redirect there?

T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All of that would fall under NPOV, OR and SYNTH unless you could find a reliable source which explicitly ties that to positions held by the Men's Rights Movement. As noted before many times in the Talk page, this article is about the MRM and not a space to discuss various MRM issues by bringing in information about the issue without a specific reference to the men's rights movement. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think one has to be aware that problems like NPOV, OR and SYNTH can also arise not only within the content of any single article, but also within the ensemble of articles on a related field. If one looks at the structure of gender related articles on Misplaced Pages, there is an article on women's rights, listing concerns, but no article on men's rights, listing concerns. Searching for "Women's rights movement" redirects to "Women's rights", and searching for "Men's rights" redirects to "Men's rights Movement". There is an article on "Masculism", but also here the talk pages show that concerns w/o good RS is thought to be inappropriate. IOW, there seems to be no page where listing men's concerns is appropriate. Listing men's concerns without NPOV or SYNTH should be relatively unproblematic. To the degree that the men's rights movement is an emerging movement which has a different structure than other, more established gender movements, the source situation will be different, but all that is handled by Wiki guidelines.

To be specific, there is a page on Feminist Blogs, listing important voices. There might be a page on MHRM Blogs, listing important voices there, too. T 83.109.182.29 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:AN

I have opened a proposal at AN to extend the WP:1RR restriction on MRM-related pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney

Has undone every single edit (or close to) I made last night, in one edit by User:MilesMoney here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=578851596&oldid=578851478

without any Edit Summary explanation. They have undone many very different edits or mine, from a small grammar improvement, to adding a link, to my adding { { fact } } without explaining why they oppose each of them. If you're too busy to respond point by point, at least give explanations for each general type of edit you Undo, be it added link, grammar, { { fact } } etc before undoing them all en masse. (The[REDACTED] system said while I was editing to be careful etc, it did not say "discuss on talk page before you many any edit of any kind at all" I note. So if I make good faith edits, there should be good faith explanations for any Undos at least in the Edit Summary) Maleliberation (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to open a discussion, not to make an article look bad. You added many tags but did not discuss them here. You also made some other changes which I believe harmed the article. Please take a look at WP:BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maleliberation, I agree with MilesMoney's revert. It seems like you would like to put forward a different kind of men's rights movement: one that is actually pro women's rights as well as pro men's rights, and that you are developing a website for this. The problem here are that:

• You cannot use WP to promote your website, logos etc see WP:COI, WP:ADVOCACY
• You cannot add your own original research and opinion to articles - see WP:OR

Your edits were for the most part unsourced and unverifiable, and to some extent repeated information already included in the article. Warren Farrell, for example, was a part of the men's liberation movement which is already described in the article. He subsequently rejected the approach. Contrary to your claims he is not profeminist at all, including going as far as recently publishing a book about about how feminism discriminates against men.Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I'm certainly not here to do original research or do opinions. I'm not as new to[REDACTED] as you may think, many years back with an account I've long lost, or anon edits, I was on here, but[REDACTED] has expanded and grown and i'm back, but I'm certainly familiar with basics like that. Given that I was jumping in, I should have been more careful to avoid the false impression that the tags were an attack on the article (I though some were obviously neurtal and others clearly pro-MRM qualifiers when I added qualifiers rather than tags, but given the turbulent history I undertand the article has, I should have been more careful) Mind you, as I noted on the Noticeboard, I did work hard to make good faith clear in one way: I put more separate edits than I needed to making it therefore easier for anyone to undo any part instead of mixing them all together. Oh well. Now, let me address first about the "website" and "images" (which are a separate issue, namely about this User account and my plans for a future upload, a separate issue from the edits) and then address the edits:

• To be clear that I am not "promoting a website" one comment and example. First, one should not confuse the website with specific images. I mean you might have your User page mention that you're a cyclist and you plan to upload images from your cycling trip, does that mean you're here to promote your website, or cycling club, or logos? Of course not... But maybe you feel there are not enough photos in the public domain of, I don't know, of some national park, fine, you upload those and put them in the public domain. Are you here to promote your bike club or its website just because you want to put some images in the public domain? Of course not...Even if you also edit articles on cycling. Now, in this cade..I was referring to specific images. As I pointed out, people upload images, for example, a picture of the White House, and they then put it in the Public Domain. They are not promoting their tourist group, theya re uploading an image of the white house or of something else. If no one wants to use it (this often happens) that's fine, if someone wants to use it in a[REDACTED] article, that's great. That is all I said or mean about my intention to upload a few images. And this has nothing to do with the edit of the aritcle, so having this out of the way, we can return to addressing the article

• As far as { { fact } } tags, they were 3 of them I think, out of 16 (I counted) edits, so they were certainly not the majority. I have copied of the edits I made so it's not the end of the world, but clarification on the other 13 or so while undoing would be helpful.

• The one { { fact } } I think the strongest one was "early 1970s" since that is very very specific, and is claimed without citation, so, it should have some kind of reference, don't you think? Some historical book, quotes from movement leaders, something, anything, to corroborate such a very precise time frame given, as opposte to 1970s in general, or mid 1970s and so forth. That's all I'm suggesting. (the other citation needed, I'll re read my notes and brign up again if upon rereading, they still seem important)

• Another tag was "by whom?" which I used about "is considered to be a backlash against" and which I'm a bit surprised is controversial because, as you can see, someone else(s) before me, had already put "weasel" tag on it...and no one deleted that...so.....mine is far weaker, not callign it "weasel" but just asking for attribution...I'm puzzled by the idea that the much stronger tag of "weasel term" is considered just fine, yet my suggesting that we merely, just be specific about "by whom?" as far as which person(s) consider it a backlash, is somehow objectionable? (or course maybe people do find the "weasel" tag objectinable...but haven't for some reason deleted it?) I still think that no matter WHAT your beliefs, and values are, it's not evil, not subversive, not anti anything, to add, just some note about who see it as a backlash movement. I know some MRAs think it's stronger with that word, some think it's weaker, etc...certainly citing who sees it that way can't cause harm, right? I do hope you see how that term can, from one point of view, be seen as pro-MRA (since one is "Backlashing" against "excesses" of or oppressive dimensions of feminism etc) and from another, it's anti or weaking of MRA ("we're not some knee jerk "anti" reaction like a rebelious child" and so on) so that term is not one sided. Therefore, opposing that term, is not biased to one side either. And I'm not even opposing it, but that characterization, should be clarified...It's certainly not universally seen by MRAs as the only way to look at the movement as backlash and nothing else, don't you agree?

• About "Many of the men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist. {{weasel inline|date=October 2013}" To be clear the "weasel" is again by someone else, not by me (my memory is not perfect but I base that on what is highlighted versus not highlighted at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=578851596&oldid=578851478 ) I did add "Many of" at the beginning. This is certainly not controversial, to say, that not ALL of the mens' rights movement claims and activities have been critiqued...as misogynist, right? I mean the claim that boys should not be genitally mutilated, even if the "scholars and others" do not agree with that claim (do not agree one should stop doing it), they don't say that merely claiming "we shoudl end MGM" is "misogynist"..that is one example, and one can find others, that is not generally critiqued as a "misoginist" claim. Surely you agree not EVERY claim, not 100% of the "claimed and activities" of the MRM is seen as or critiqued as, "misoginist", right? Taht's all I meant by adding "Many of". Does that make sense? (and if you're an advocate of Men's Rights you surely can't see that as unfair to the MRM, to say that many have been critiqued, instead of saying ALL the activities have been critiqued...)

The "unsourced" shoe I think is on the other foot, on our current version in other words. I do not think this applies to you, but hypothetically if there was someone, if anyone wanted to claim that absolutely ALL of the MRM "claims and activities" have been critiqued as misogynist (which I don't think is you or anyone else, right?) would need to give a source, if anyone made such a claim and again I doubt anyone would claim tis' 100% of MRM activities and claims that have been critiqued as such...We do not need need to give a source on the other hand, to add two words and for us to say "many of" the MRM activities/claims have been critiqued as...given with our references that already exist, but with the current references (and with reality itself) one cannot claim ALL have been critiqued...the wording without any qualifier, is saying that: THE claims of the MRM have been called something...but surely ou agree that no, not ALL of them, there are some MRM claims that have not been called misoginist or even critiqued at all as misogynist or even as malevolent more generally..

• One goal I hope we share is that of hearing one another better, everyone. It's a very polarized and (I think, or hope, most agree) often counterproductive atmosphere. Sometimes, we have a hard time hearing one another. I still am not totally sure if the Admin Bbb23 is "MRA" or "feminism" but since they clarified that they were "sarcastic" about not just the goal of cooperation (not merging, just cooperation) between the movement, but instead bout the term "male liberation", then perhaps they are a "feministm" who is highly suspicious while you seem to be an MRA who is highly suspicious...I just ask eveyrone to try to hear what the other person is saying. For example you misheard me, because things are so "black or white" polarized that you did not notice that I deliberately, conciously, made a decision to NOT say that Warren Farrell is "profeminism" I deliberatley avoided using that term to describe him. Because I agree with you that is not the most accurate term. There were two placed I referred to his website. In one I used an either or where one of the terms was feminist, but merely referred broadly to be inclusive of others (of people other than Warren Farrell) when I referred to people who are "EITHER feminist OR for women's rights" That does not claim Farrell is feminist, merely that he is one of those two; since he is for rights for women (see next note) that phrase with the either-or describes a larger group of people, but includes him. In the previous item, I did not even put the word "feminist" (let alone "profeminist" which is the term you used) I wrote:

Some contemporary advocates for men's rights supported or were leaders in the 1970s of feminist activism for women's rights and still support empowerment of women as well as of men.

Ok, if you don't like "empowerment of" I am open to other phrases but if you looked at the[REDACTED] entry (written by others, not by me) on Warren Farrell, it says (and I have seen his website and some of his writings and I agree this[REDACTED] characterization by someone else, is accurate) where it writes in the entry about Warren Farrell, that: "He came to prominence in the 1970s as one of the leading male thinkers championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization of Women (NOW). However, when NOW took policy positions that Farrell regarded as anti-male and anti-father, he continued supporting the expansion of women’s options while adding what he felt was missing about boys, men and fathers. He is now recognized as one of the most important figures in the modern men's movement"

so that is the phrase used there, we can use it instead if you prefer...the phrase "continues to support the expansion of women's options" From his web page, he advises companies among other things, about how to avoid not just "pay discrimination" but also sexual harrassment lawsuits, and yes, part of that is about keeping lines of communication open and so forth, but also, he IS opposed to a workplace that has actual sexual harrassment of women (that does not contradict his being also opposed to workplaces that discriminate against men, or which allow harrassment of men, sexual or otherwise)

Let me know what you think about this and I appreciate your listening. But to be clear, I am not trying to convince you or others, here, that we should cooperate etc (what an essay on a website off[REDACTED] might or might not suggest in the future, is completely separate) but I'm not here to convince you about cooperation or even, if you don't want to hear about the possibility of non-angatonism, I wont' try to convince you or that either....However, what is NOT ok, is to erase history or reality, so I merely am asking that the article be truthful and accurate, in representing the historical (1970s) and the present overlaps, in views, and in individuals. I will admit I have provided less documentation about current overlap, I may have additional references, or additional individuals, as examples in the presence.

On the other hand, as far as in the past, as far as history, one could read the present article and not know that there is any MRA/MRM person today that used to be a leader in the 1970s...maybe I missed a passing reference...but surely, to mention Warren Farrell (and I agree with you: we DO mention him!) and to not let readers know this person's activities, role, beliefs, and even leadership in the 1970s and later, in women's right, not only does a disservice to the MRA (falsely suggesting that no MRA has EVER in the past been for womene's rights) but is on a basic level (putting aside one's politics) simply missing a big part of history, that readers of this article deserve to know...Something needs to be put, prominently, into this article, and especially into the "relation to feminism" section..this historical fact.

In other words, it's kinda crazy to have a section about "relation to feminism" and say nothing in that section that, oh by the way, some leading MRA/MRM folks today were part of what was then the feminist movement (yes I do use "feminist" about his past views..and much more importantly, his past actions...about his present views, I did not and do not use "feminist") I hope we can use this as the basis to find wording we can agree upon... Maleliberation (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Allegations

I am not drive by tagging, there was a clear an coherent discussion previously about weasel words. If you could stop reverting an discuss it would make it easier, as everyone is at 1RR now. KonveyorBelt 15:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that discussion (and previous discussions on the same subject) has run its course. As a result of that discussion, I added an additional source satisfying RS-AC for the use of the word "scholars". Consensus for use of the word backlash was discussed in archive 21 under Backlash section and consensus for the use of the phrasing 'have been described as misogynist' was discussed under archive 20 under 'Has there been an RfC on the use of "Misogyny" in the lede?' section. I don't believe consensus has changed for these issues, there was previous discussion for RFC but this was closed as abusive. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not here for earlier discussions and I do not question that there was consensus, if you say there was, about the term "Backlash" itself, or that is has been used, by some, about key parts the MRM or of MRA activism, but you might both want to see my comments in the preceding section https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney where I do not question the term Backlash, and did not put "weasel" but whether it's "Backlash" or "misogynist" it needs to be clarified who. And for "misogynist" it needs to say "many claims by MRM" and not suggest to readers that ALL of the claims of the MRM have been criticized as misogynist. I doubt you will find a significadnt portion of scholars who say that some MRM claims, like the claim that MGM should be stopped, is misogynist, even if the scholars disagree with the recommendation (that is, even if they think sexually mutilating babies is ok if they are xy rather than xx) they do not criticize the claim that MGM should not be practiced as misogynist. Well you can find one person who claims anything, like the moon landing was faked, but real substantial scholarly critiques. In any case, the burden of proof (and the issue of unverifiability comes up here) would be on those who claim that ALL the claims (statements) of the MRM have been critiqued as misogynist (the current wording by not saying "many of" does read as saying all statements by MRM...) See details in previous section.

As for being called "backlash" the current wording I do not find as problemmatic, but again, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the entire movement, that ALL parts and types of MRA, all threads, all streams of thoughts in the heterogeneous social movement, are seen as a backlash. It's not just that it's false, but that the "Are seen as" part, which is the part we care about as editors, is also not true. Of course the former is not true (that's easy to prove, again those coming from an anti-MGM, anti male genital mutilation background, to then critique other aspects of culture like "boys are not allowed to cry" and such MRM people might even call themselves "also feminist" and at least, not anti-feminism, while being anti-MGM and against the brutalities of how boys are culturally raised, and joint visitation rights and other issues) The issue is not that it's not true, of course, since we are not here to say what is true but what people say...I doubt many out there say that anti-MGM (people including many many women, and you can bet some of those women consider themselves feminist and almost all of them will be for women's rights too.. if you're not aware) arose as a "backlash" against feminism. Some parts, I completely agree, arose as a backlash against either feminism or feminism-influenced parts of the society as a whole, no argument there. But not all parts, and you will hard a hard time finding scholars and others who say that the anti-MGM and boys rights parts, which include many (some might even be dominated by) women, arose as a "backlash" against feminism. In an event, the burden of proof is on editors who claim that. It's on those who assert that not just part of, or many parts of the MRM but that ALL parts of it (it is heterogeneous, just as feminism is) have been called, viewed as a backlash.. specifically the anti-MGM/boys-rights portions of the movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney for the rest Maleliberation (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you locate some scholarly source saying that the MRM is not a backlash then perhaps we can revisit the consensus question. Your heartfelt arguments, unsupported by sources, will not do anything against the big list I provided of sources which discuss the MRM as a backlash. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 21#"Backlash". At that discussion, nobody came up with a single scholarly source to support the removal of the word "backlash". Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This same gambit is played out here repeatedly: "come up with a scholarly source that says such-and-such about the MRM."

Here's the rub.

Much of what passes for academic scholarship in the area of gender studies / women's studies is actually feminist political advocacy, not neutral scholarship (e.g., labeling the MRM with the derogatory, value-laden word backlash.) This has been noted by several scholars (irony intended), such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai. Most of the "scholarly" sources here are not neutral, they are feminist political advocates and are inherently biased against many of the perspectives of the MRM.

The upshot of using "scholarly sources" is that the MRM is largely defined and analyzed here by those who oppose it -- without acknowledgement of this bias. This is an example of systemic bias in coverage. This systemic bias is arguably perpetuated by a group of strongly anti-MRM edtiors here who engage in commandeering and multiple-editor ownership, resulting in an article that supports advocacy (or, in this case, opposition) rather than neutrality.

IMO, WP currently does not have sufficient policy guidelines to effectively address this problem. However, there is an easy solution. In the interests of neutrality and NPOV simply refer to scholarly sources -- when they are feminist sources -- as "feminist scholarly sources" -- just as MRM sources are identified by their political leanings (e.g., "according to MRM activists," "men's rights activist John Doe argued that,"... etc.). Memills (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dang, you get so worked up about how the scholarship on the topic is primarily performed by feminists. Why do you think that MRM advocates are not creating scholarly studies of the MRM? I don't have an answer, but until there are competing scholarly views, we present the scholarship as scholarship alone, not as biased scholarship. If there is only one side presented by scholars then that is the central position.

The Misplaced Pages WP:Neutral point of view policy says to avoid bias in the composition of our encyclopedia-style writing, so the best course is to describe the mainstream scholarly conclusions as neutrally as possible, and then give a nod to the MRM position which is probably not so solidly sourced. The WP:RS guideline says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," so both feminist and antifeminist authors can be used. Restrictions such as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are placed on wildly biased sources. At RS the examples of biased sources do not include scholars writing professional books, papers and journal articles, which means our feminist scholars are not normally considered biased. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Why do you think that MRM advocates are not creating scholarly studies of the MRM?"

Easy.

Because, as I noted above, virtually all academic gender studies / women's studies departments are not scholarly in the traditional sense -- they are political advocacy organizations. See especially Daphne Patai's book re this: Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies. (One reviewer of the book, Mary Lefkowitz, of Wellesley College, wrote: "... in many universities Women's Studies programs have been transformed into political pressure groups or religious cults.")

Is is not surprising then that there is little academic "scholarly" work from pro-MRM authors given that there are virtually none in academia due to biased, politically inbred hiring standards in gender studies / women's studies departments. Their new faculty advertisements virtually always indicate they are seeking someone with a feminist perspective; never are they seeking someone with a masculinist / MRM background.

Given the above, unless scholars who advocate feminism / self-identify as feminists are identified here as feminist scholars, rather than simply as "scholars" (which erroneously implies some degree of academic/political neutrality), the systemic bias in coverage here will continue.

This is an obvious and easy fix. Memills (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

... when did the Merriam Webster Dictionary become a "feminist source" ? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

...when it accepts a feminist definition of masculinism. Here is another, more neutral definition: "n. an advocate of the rights of men. adj. of, characterized by, or relating to men's rights"

My suggestion was to identify the political/theoretical POV of scholars -- e.g., feminist scholar Jane Doe, masculinist author Warren Farrell. This is routinely done in many fields where there are theoretical, philosophical, or political differences -- in economics (e.g., monetarist John Doe, Marxist scholars), philosophy (postmodernist philosophers), politics (conservative Barry Goldwater, libertarian scholars), and psychology (behaviorist B.F. Skinner). Compared to using "scholar" by itself (which may give a inaccurate impression of political neutrality) this would help to improve the currently questioned neutrality of the article. Memills (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On Fathers' rights

Hi,

I was thinking about this passage in the article: "Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it. /..../ Deborah Rhode argues that contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents."

The first claim iss that "empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias". The way this is written makes it sound like there was, at the time of writing, actual emprirical research refuting the claim of judicial bias. When looking at the source, however, the source says "... despite the lack of supporting empirical research", IOW, that at the time of publication of the source there was no empirical research presented. That's a different state of affairs. How to rewrite this to reflect the source in a correct manner?

The second claim is that "men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it". The source for this is Susan Crean's book "In the name of the Fathers...". However, according to Susan Crean, the starting point of the book is changes to faily law in Ontario, Canada, in the mid-eighties (http://www.susancrean.ca/books). Whatever the scope of the book, it can hardly support a sweeping statement about _all_ fathers then and today that they do not want custody - even only the fact of fathers' rights groups arising should be enough to demonstrate the falsity of that claim. How to change the article to correct this impression?

The third claim is that Deborah Rhode claims that "research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents". OTOH there exists other research that claims the opposite, e.g. Madonna E. Bowman & Constance R. Ahrons, Impact of Legal Custody Status on Fathers' Parenting Postdivorce, 47 J. MARRIAGE AND FAM. 481, 481-88 (1985) (reporting that joint legal custody increased the amount of time fathers spent with children); Judith A. Seltzer, 1997, (http://ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/nsfh75.pdf) (reporting that "...Controlling for the quality of family relationships before separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more child support than fathers in families in which mothers have sole legal custody. However, among those with a formal child support order, fathers with joint legal custody pay about the same percentage of the child support order as fathers without joint legal custody. These findings support the view that joint legal custody encourages some aspects of paternal involvement after divorce"). The study "LAGGING BEHIND THE TIMES: PARENTHOOD, CUSTODY, AND GENDER BIAS IN THE FAMILY COURT" by Cynthia A. McNeely contains criticisms of the scientific validity of the article sources nr 62 (the "Massachusetts Study") and nr 74 (Rohde); IOW, these sources are contentious, if not downright unreliable, which would make them not RS, as they contain unverifiable claims.

Any thoughts?

T83.109.182.29 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the claims, #1 - the source is Melville, Angela; Hunter, Rosemary (2001). "'As everybody knows': Countering myths of gender bias in family law". Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 124–138. The wording in the WP citation states: "Several authors have observed that men's rights groups claim that the family law system and the Family Court are biased against men, despite the lack of supporting empirical research.". Looking at the paper, this quote is a annotation of the following sentence: "Another myth that permeates the men's movement, and which has also entered public consciousness, is the belief that male experiences of the Family Fourt are devalued.". Most of the paper discusses other myths regarding men's issues and uses similar wording of "lack of empirical evidence/research". As such, I think this reflects the source quite accurately, and a suggestion that new empirical research has arisen since 2001 would be WP:SYNTH without a separate reliable source backing it up.

Claim #2 - I don't have access to this book but from the looks of it, it may only be about Father's rights people rather than MRM. Its hard to say without actually reading it - but if this is the case, the sourcing should be removed, information taken from here and placed in the FRM article (if not already) and sentencing resourced in context of MRM.

Claim #3 - The sentence specifically attributes that opinion to Deborah Rhode so it should be appropriate in that context - the exact quote from the article is "Contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, most research finds that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents." If you have research from RS that speaks otherwise (and can attribute said research to the MRM) it can be appended to those sentences. Whether or not McNeely criticizes sources nos 62 and 74 is largely irrelevant for WP purposes in respect to inclusion - they are from scholarly journals and very clearly RS and explicitly deal with the MRM. However, McNeely's article is also a RS but I'm having a hard time directly linking it to the MRM - it seems a piece more suited for inclusion in the FRM article. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Crean's statement that "T" believes is incorrect is about the men's rights movement, not the fathers' rights movement. "T" (who should log in), our job is to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about the men's rights movement. It's a piece of cake to find sources that disprove most MRM claims in the article. For instance, research doesn't support the men's rights claim that the teacher's sex (i.e., the "feminization" of the school system) causes problems for boys in school. What is not a piece of cake, however, is to actually find sources that discuss these issues in connection to the men's rights movement. For example, if you want to show that Crean's assessment is wrong you need a source that says that men's rights activists are correct in their interpretation of statistics and that they consider the fact that many men do not contest custody. Besides, be careful where you take the scope argument because the primary sources (e.g., Farrell writing about the view of one men's rights activist, himself, Benatar writing about all sorts of stuff except the MRM) would need to go first. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Going further with Claim #1, the article goes on to say "The relative lack of no-contact orders suggest that men are not being denied contact with their children by the Family Court. These findings are supported by other research, which suggests that the principle of both parents having contact with their children often overrides considerations of the safety of the parties, and, arguably, the best interests of the children." PearlSt82 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Divorce section -- recent addition on Legal Framing

I have expanded the recent addition to the section on divorce. The cited work (which I thought was excellent) is offering a "model for empirical research on legal framing" (per the abstract) and describes three types of legal framing: 1) "Collective Rights Framing" which has been historically used to "justify specific legal protections for women", 2) "Individual Rights Framing", which is where the citation talks about the men's rights movement claiming that divorce laws violate "individual rights to equal protection" and 3) "Nationalistic Legal Framing", which is not particularly relevant here. The incorporation of this citation as it originally stood, did not include a key portion of the work which seems very relevant, namely the distinction between "Individual Rights Framing" (favored by the Men's movement) and "Collective Rights Framing" (favored by "Women's movements" to "justify specific legal protections for women", pg 34 of the cited work). I've added this, and changed the text describing the counter point about systemic bias against women to be an actual quote from the cited work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheTrees (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello InTheTrees (talk · contribs), fancy meeting you here. The key portion of the work is the portion where the source actually says something about the men's rights movement. That would be

• "For example, the 'men's rights' movement has used individual rights framing in arguments that laws designed to protect women (e.g., in divorce and custody proceedings) violate men's individual rights to equal protection of the laws (Williams, 1995, p. 134). This framing downplays the systematic biases that women face that justify protective divorce and custody laws, such as employment discrimination and societal expectations around child rearing (see Albiston, 2005, pp. 12-16, 30-35). Instead it emphasizes the values of universal protection of the law to each individual regardless of social status (whether disadvantaged or privileged)..."
• "The Section 'An Ideal Typology of Legal Framing' discussed examples of individual rights framing in the men's rights and anti-afirmative action movements, and argued that individual rights framing appealed to these right-wing movements because it minimizes the claimant's social status."
• "Rather, the men's rights and anti-affirmative action movements have a similar position as 'backlash' movements... These movements face a common rhetorical hurdle in portraying their constituency as victimized by progressive reforms designed to advance social equality. Their use of the individual rights frames appeal to backlash right-wing movements because they draw attention away from the movement's position of relative privilege vis-a-vis their opponents."

My summary of the points concerning the MRM was perfectly appropriate, yours isn't. You are free to add the stuff about the MRM and its connection to backlash right-wing movements. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your first quoted section above is good, since it's not very different from what I added to the article, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to revert my edit and then suggest something substantially similar. The parts about backlash and right-wing movements don't seem particularly relevant to the section on Divorce and I think are covered elsewhere, but I agree with your idea, in that feel free to add them to appropriate sections.

More generally, I think the point of article that you cited is to show that there are different styles of legal framing and there seems to be a conflict between the framing of men's movements and women's movements particularly in the realm of divoce law. So, as I noted earlier I think you found a good source there. Also, re your summary being more appropriate... curious since yours *was* a summary, where I included actual text from YOUR source, and not a summary. InTheTrees (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You were the editor who reverted (twice, thereby violation the 1RR restriction) and I have no idea why you reverted and added cherry-picked quotes from one page and ignored quotes from other pages. Yes, I provided a summary. That is exactly what editors are supposed to do. If you insist on using direct quotes rather than summarizing reliable sources, let's quote everything the source says about the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Binksternet's edit: Leachman argues that "with individual right framing, the claimant's identity as part of a social group becomes secondary" (p. 35) and that that's exactly what appeals to the men's rights (and anti-affirmative action) movement because the framing "minimizes the claimant's social status" (p. 43-44) and allows men's rights (and anti-affirmative action) activists to "draw attention away from the movement's position of relative privilege vis-a-vis their opponents". This is the crucial point (that the framing disregards the difference in social status between women and men and blacks and whites) and it is missing from the most recent attempt at describing the source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In this change of mine, I was trying to get away from the seemingly buried concept of "downplays" which was linked with "and". I think it should be separate, which is what I wrote. Otherwise it could be contrasted with the previous framing, but not presented as one of a piece, tied together with "and". Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I get it and consider it an improvement to InTheTrees' version. But do you find fault with the original summary? It explains why the individual rights framing appeals to men's rights activists (disregards the relatively high social status of the claimant, i.e., men, and the relatively low social status of their "opponents", i.e., women), which is the main point. I quoted the three passages from the source where the men's rights movement is mentioned, perhaps you can propose a better phrasing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Equity without Equity: Universities’ Love-Hate Relationship with Men in 1972 Farrell was "leading a protest in support of the Women’s Strike for Equality" and see his[REDACTED] entry, he was elected chapter president of NOW three times

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• High-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Start-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• Top-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics