| Revision as of 01:34, 20 August 2012 editBelchfire (talk | contribs)4,207 edits →Requested move: s← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:37, 17 August 2024 edit undo76.171.164.140 (talk) →Parental Alienation: new sectionTag: New topic |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Mbox |
|
|
|
{{Notice|1=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 .}} |
|
|type = content |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum|Men's rights}} |
|
|image = ] |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|text = '''This article has been placed on ].''' Editors making disruptive edits may be ] temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages.Please see ] for further information. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=Top}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=High}} |
|
<small>'''Administrators:''' when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is ], under the section "Log of sanctions"</small> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Low}} |
|
}}<includeonly>]]</includeonly> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism |importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low |Social movements=yes}} |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=start|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=start|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=start|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
{{not a forum|Men's rights}} |
|
|
{{Topic|Men's rights|talk=y}} |
|
{{Topic|Men's rights|talk=y}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 80K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 32 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(40d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Men's rights/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
|
|title1=Men's rights movement|title2=Men's rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|list= |
|
== SPLC == |
|
|
|
*RM, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, '''Not moved''', 5 nov 2011, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
*RFC, Men's rights → Men's rights movement, '''Moved''', 14 Aug 2012, ] |
|
The ] has issued a couple reports that may be appropriate to mention briefly in the section on the men's rights movement - and . I'm not sure offhand if they're appropriate for inclusion, so I figured I'd just drop the link here and let y'all decide. ] (]) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*RM, Men's rights movement → Men's rights, '''Not moved''', 13 Sept 2012, ] |
|
::well it's a verifiable paper publication that's used as a law enforcement resource, from a notable organisation who's work and research have been constantly reported in the news. they also did an article on mra claims. . just had a look on the ] and they say that "intelligence report" is a RS known for fact-checking and has awards for investigative journalism. ] (]) 13:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::This definitely needs to be included. SPLC is a reputable source. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by |
|
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
::This definitely needs to be included. SPLC is a reputable source. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Carian |first1=Emily K. |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=The Inversive Sexism Scale: Endorsement of the Belief That Women Are Privileged}} |
|
::I have a few problems with it being included, mainly it's admitted bias, which is discussed on the RS board, and I don't see any sort of "consensus" that it is indeed reliable unless I missed something, which I'm completely open to. The article they did addressed 3 concerns of mens rights, while it is an article it is anything but in-depth. ] (]) 17:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Rothermel |first1=Ann-Kathrin |last2=Kelly |first2=Megan |last3=Jasser |first3=Greta |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=Of Victims, Mass Murder, and 'Real Men': The Masculinities of the 'Manosphere'}} |
|
:::I take that back, after looking at another link to SPLC, they do seem to agree it's a RS, so I cede that point. My point about the bias stands, so I think it can be included, but should adhere to weight issues. (ie this is a topic about Men's Rights in general, not a specific group) and the war on women article is written as a editorial, more than factual. ] (]) 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Coning |first1=Alexis de |last2=Ebin |first2=Chelsea |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=E. K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=C. |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=Men's Rights Activists, Personal Responsibility, and the End of Welfare}} |
|
::They "disprove" an MRA claim by ignoring data from the exact same study that MRAs use to prove the very claim. The CDC's NISVS found that, if one includes a male being forced to penetrate without his consent as rape, in 2010 the same number of women and men were raped - they just chose not to call it rape. The article ignores that. They also mispresent the MRA-asserted parity in domestic violence by conflating it with violence in general (the claim says violence, the study they talk about says partner violence, then back to general), and dismiss only a single study (which, for the record, nobody who posted on the issue in the largest MRA forum on the internet had ever heard of). And only a tiny portion of people assert that false claims are as high as "close to half or even more" (weasel words, much?). In the other article that talks about the men's rights subreddit on reddit, they talk about the claims of a moderator that had stepped down 6 months before without mentioning it. They may be an RS, but it's a terrible article, can it not be excluded or at least posted along with criticism (at least if a good source is found)? |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(above, unsigned) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Two curious matters in reading the article, about the self-immolation suicide. |
|
|
:::* The external name is "Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement;" but the internal article web-name is "War on Women!" |
|
|
:::* Only mentioning in passing, that there are legitimate men's issues, it take a tragic suicide of a despairing father, and makes it, somehow, an attack on women. |
|
|
:::A Misplaced Pages Editor could not get away with that sort of weaseling and POV violation. ] ] 23:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are right that the article takes a more explicit point of view than would be appropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor, but there's not really any such thing as a 'POV violation' in a source. We don't require (or expect or desire) our ''sources'' to be neutral, we just expect our editors to portray the sources that do exist in a neutral fashion. If something meets our standards to be a ] (and SPLC articles do,) then we're perfectly okay with the source having an opinion. ] (]) 23:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::It concerns me that what I would expect to be a balanced source, has such a radical (a father committing suicide is equivocal to an "attack on women") and disingenuous posture (the article's title and the content of that article being irreconcilable). The word "reliable" must take on new meaning. Blacks claim unequal and harsher sentencing in criminal court, we do not go to the KKK for counterpoint in working on an article. We already know the organization has taken a stance against the subject and we also know that the organization is not directly involved in the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::My point is, when an otherwise reliable source has, for reasons of its own, chosen an extreme position against the subject matter-- it ceases to be a ''valid'' source; further, that as the SPLC has no apparent work among Men's Groups, they have no direct relation to the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::That men see themselves as disadvantaged in certain issues, is NOT served by a source which is quick to marginalize and demonize. A father seeking custody of his children is not attacking women and a husband unable to gain logistics support (a shelter) when physically abused by his wife is not the concern of the SPLC-- although I cannot imagine why the SPLC has taken such a position. ] ] 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Reliable ''does'' have a special meaning in the context of Misplaced Pages, please see our policy that deals with ]. If a source meets the guidelines set forth in our sourcing policies, than the source is not made somehow invalid no matter how much you disagree with its opinions. We don’t require the sources we used to be balanced or neutral, we just require them to meet the standards we set forward for reliability. The SPLC meets our standards for reliability: they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and have editorial oversight. They are also generally well-regarded outside of Misplaced Pages – their publications, especially their Intelligence Reports (which this is one of) – have wide circulation among domestic law enforcement agencies, are frequently cited in the mainstream media, are frequently used by academics, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Since SPLC publications meet the standard we set forth for reliability, it also doesn’t matter that they have not previously been directly involved in the men’s rights movement. We assume that sources that meet our standards for reliability are reliable when they are talking about subject areas that they choose to talk about, even when they are subject areas that they are not part of movements for. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::SPLC is an advocacy group, so its opinion shouldn’t (and won’t) be included as fact in any article here. However, they are a prominent advocacy group – they are usually recognized as the leading authority on hate groups in the US – so their opinion will be worthy of a mention in the eventual rewrite of this article. And I see no reason to believe that SPLC is an unreliable source for matters of straight fact, like “The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the MRM.” |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Also: please don’t make hyperbolic emotionally charged analogies such as comparing the relationship between the SPLC and men to that of black people and the Klan. ] (]) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin, |
|
|
1) You read what I wrote and what you got out of that is that I do not know the policy on reliable sources. |
|
|
2) You read an analogy of a biased source ''not'' involved with MRMs, and what you took from that was that I was comparing inner city minorities to fathers denied custody rights-- calling it "hyperbole." |
|
|
3) You read the article and what you got out of it was that the suicide drew attention to the MRM? |
|
|
Really? |
|
|
No. Not really. You have another motive for pretending not to understand. Otherwise, you might have addressed my point rather than provide the condescension. Address my point, not me, and not the points you wished I were making.--] ] 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:#You suggested that that the SPLC article was inappropriate to use a source because it had an opinion that you disagreed with. This is not something that is suggested by or supported by in any of our sourcing policies, so I did assume that you hadn't read them in-depth. |
|
|
:#If I misrepresented your analogy, I'm sorry, but there's still no reason to be comparing the KKK and the SPLC on this page in any context. On a page that tends to draw more heat than light to begin with, I cannot imagine why comparing the most famous monitor of hate groups in the United States - which is a well-regarded non-profit thinktank that meets ] - to the most famous hate group in the United States - which is, well, none of those things (and fails ]) - would be a good idea. |
|
|
:#The article contains that information, as a statement of fact. So, yes. It contains a lot of other information and opinion. I was giving an example of information that could be derived from the article that is not covered in many other ], not trying to portray the opinion of the article. |
|
|
:Please read the ] that this article is currently under. You're free to think I have a shadowy ulterior motive, but the terms of probation require you to comment on my content points, rather than comment on my motives. ] (]) 13:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::#I most certainly did NOT suggest that "the SPLC article was inappropriate to use a source because it had an opinion that you disagreed with." I questioned ''validity'' based on evidence of bias-- not based upon agreement with me. Do not seek to marginalize my comments which were made in good faith-- as that statement clearly and indisputably does. I expressed a valid concern-- not an attack. Please treat my comments as they are. |
|
|
::#If you apologize, then why restate your misrepresentation as if accurate? Do not put words in my mouth, as it demonstrates a lack of sincere contrition. I explained the extent of the analogy when I made it. It is till there for you to read and address, if you like. I also expressed dismay that such a group would chose to ''victimize a victim''-- a man who seems to have no relation, whatsoever, with a hate group-- that is, assuming you had researched the subject as I had already done. I came to this discussion knowing the subject-- having written of it elsewhere when the suicde took place; so I may well have insight as to the article's inappropriate use made of that suicide in relation to hate groups. |
|
|
::#You cherry picked your quote from that article and you know it. I knew it, too. So, No, that quote does not represent what you believe the article to be about, as you have now stated. But you chose to use it, and only now claim that you did so as "an example of information that could be derived from the article." Maybe so, but you would likely admit that the opposite of that reason is more easily deduced in the context of your original reply. You make my point: One piece of truth in a sea of hogwash does not validate the hogwash, and thus a reliable source becomes a questionable one. |
|
|
::Sauce for the goose. Engage my discussion and not the discussion you wished I were taking. I have declared that expectation twice. Go back and read Number One if you do not understand why I have repeated myself. |
|
|
::--] ] 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please provide a link to any relevant sourcing policy that states that biased articles are invalid as sources, or any sourcing policies that state that your own personal opinion (i.e.: your belief that the article speaks of the suicide in an inappropriate way) is a valid criterion to treat as invalid a source that otherwise meets ]. Pieces by well-established thinktanks like the ], ], or ] are appropriate sources to use for matters of simple fact (like the fact that Ball's suicide drew additional attention to the MRM) and the opinions that they contain are appropriate to put in to articles in relevant places in ] with attribution (like, "In a recent report the ] stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") ] (]) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We are not limited to policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
We make use of our intellect, any ethics, and the ability to distinguish biased writing from the unbiased. That is what the Talk Page is for-- so that editors may bring forth issues of concern so that others editors may consider. I was ''responding'' to the topic begin by just such another editor. You have a problem with that I responded to it-- So what? |
|
|
|
|
|
What a Talk Page is '''not''' for, is exampled by your contrary replies. The only editor attempting to lord over another editor is you-- it is taken this many comments just to back out of range of your attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
My original expressed concerns remain un-discussed. Instead, I have had to unravel your rhetoric in rewording my comments so that I fit your model of an antagonist. Stop it! Find something constructive to do. I made no attack on you, I expressed a concern-- which you are not addressing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let those who might be interested, do so, without comment since you have nothing constructive to offer. You disparage, condescend and distract again, and I will escalate this.--] ] 21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've previously linked the terms of probation that this article is currently under in a reply to you here; I'll post a formal notification of them on your talk page concurrently with submitting this post, because I hadn't previously and believe a formal notification is necessary before they have any force, although I'm not sure. I would like to especially draw your attention to the point that says that discussions should be focused on the content involved, and not on other editors. Many of your recent posts have been almost solely making unsupported claims about my behavior and motivations and not dealing with content issues. If you keep making accusations towards me, I will be asking uninvolved administrators to review your conduct and sanction you if they find that it does violate the article probation terms. (And to be clear: any uninvolved administrator would also be reviewing my behavior.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are right that we are not restricted solely to following policy, but site-wide policies reflect the codified consensus of Misplaced Pages editors. We need strong reasons to deviate from them. I don't think you have presented any, and certainly, a consensus has not emerged to deviate from ] which is a fundamental site wide policy, or ], which is a guideline. Barring a strong consensus to deviate from existing sitewide policies, we default to following them. If you would like to draw more opinions to this issue to try to establish a consensus in favor of your viewpoint, you can run a ], or run the issue past the ] ] (]) 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Hadn't we already agreed this source isn't fit for this article? I have my own gripes with how this one has been handled (Arguments against inclusion of material because it is about the Men's Rights movement, then turning around later and trying to change it into a Men's Rights Movement article), but let us not waste our time. It's a crap source. Moving on.... ] (]) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is the only talk page section that ever mentioned SPLC, including in the archives, and you've never posted in it previously. Until cregil started to post here a couple days ago, only one editor had disagreed completely with its inclusion. So, no: there was not a previous consensus that this article was inappropriate (and you had not posted an opinion prior to your current post about the SPLC.) ] (]) 22:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I've gone ahead and started an RSN thread about this: ] ] (]) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies, this source has come up on numerous other pages and I confused this with that. What information are you looking to include with this source? Start there and we can move forward. ] (]) 00:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here we go ] (]) 00:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm on really lame internet currently and just got my response to this deleted when I tried to post it for some reason. I don't have time to draft another version of it, so I'll leave you with a short answer for now and reply in more detail later. The kind of things I want to use it for I posted in more detail the RSN link that I posted directly above your comment - assuming the RFC closes as move to MRM, I think it would be useful to flush out certain facts about the men's rights movement (it's one of the only third party sources that even mentions the immolation of Tom Ball as a significant event), and think that the opinion may warrant a sentence or so in a section about reactions to the MRM or something similar. This would be sticking to what the article actually says, not saying anything like "The SPLC says the men's rights movement is a hate group," since that's not something that is supported by the article or was intended by the author. (I also haven't had time to read the thread you linked yet, but will look through it later.) (] (]) 01:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Successful Suicide Rate == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article will morph for the forseeable future under the stream of <s>impartial</s> biased people from every side of every related issue, so excuse me for picking a small spot in this article that popped out as possibly an artifact of edit warring. In the section titled "Men's rights movement" (odd capitalization, since the existence of the section implies that the MRM is a proper noun) I think the qualifier "successful" in front of suicide is a symptom of the argument over this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
♠ To begin with, we refer to successful suicide as just "suicide," do we not? We never talk about the recent string of "''successful'' suicides" amongst gay teens. It's when suicide is attempted but failed that we bother to qualify it as "attempted suicide." |
|
|
|
|
|
♣ Second, I don't believe I've ever heard (or read, but then, I've never read such literature) someone claiming to be a participant in the "Men's rights movement" complain of the "higher ''successful'' suicide rate," so I tried to check the source cited for the offending sentence... and lo, the page cited is not available on Google Books, nor at my local library, and to purchase the book would cost more than $200. My suspicion is that at some point, someone wanted to include a sentence indicating that suicide attempts amongst females have a lower success rate, but that edit warring commenced, so the sentence boiled down to include, as a means to diminish the idea, "successful." |
|
|
|
|
|
Summary: Without making any value judgments about the participants, it's clear that MRAs do not focus on the "successful" aspect of suicide. If you're '''trying to indicate their positions''', which the sentence as it currently exists does, you shouldn't simultaneously try to fit in a critique of that position. |
|
|
|
|
|
That said, if it's agreed that the word ''successful'' doesn't belong there, maybe you can all fight about whether to put the data on '''suicide attempt/success rate by gender''' in some other section in this article. (My guess is that that will stir up more argument, but hey, right now it's just sitting there pretending not to be the result of woman-hate, man-hate, woman-hating-man-hate, and man-hating-woman-hate. For the record, I haven't checked the revision history for when that changed, so I could very well be wrong.) ] (]) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're right, the word successful probably makes no sense there. I don't have easy access to the citation either, but I'll take it out just because I can't imagine that it's supported by the citation. (This is one of the reasons why the citation maintenance tag is in the beginning of the article - the previous unconstructive back and forth over the article resulted in the misrepresentation of a *lot* of citations.) ] (]) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's interesting that neither of you can read the source, because it works fine for me. I wonder how or why googlebooks works. The source says "The literature of the men's rights movement frequently cites statistics that show that men suffer shorter lives, higher successful suicide rates, and a higher incidence of most stress-related diseases than do women," so it is supported by the citation. I think that the "successful" point may be important, because women (in the US at least) make 3 times the number of attempts as men do,. The wording is not felicitous however, I agree. --] (]) 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dispute tags - further discussion needed == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been ] and removed the top notices about embedded lists and fancruft. This article does not appear to contain any embedded lists, at least not according to how they are described in ]. It also is not material that is only of interest to a hardcore minority of fans, but is rather a general-interest sociology article. If anybody believes that these tags should be reinstated, please discuss it below. I would also like to discuss the other tags, and see if they are actually necessary. IF they are, we need to figure out what to do to improve the article so that they ''become'' unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Verifiability: Which sources are misleading or inappropriate? They generally appear to be high-quality sources, mostly academic publications with a healthy dose of newspapers and books. The Daily Mail and Washington Times stick out like a sore thumb, though. The Daily Mail citation doesn't appear to reference a claim that is terribly important to the article, and the Washington Times is used to back up two statements that also have other sources. We could probably excise them without any major loss to the article. Foundation of Male Studies might also be sub-par. Are there any subject-matter experts who could do a more thorough review of the academic sources? It is possible that some of them come from poor-quality journals, I just don't have the expertise to determine that. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Expert attention: Yes, it may be a good idea to have an expert review the sources (see above). I'm not sure if having a tag at the top of the article is beneficial, though. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
*Worldwide view: The article seems to contain information about situations in the United States, Canada, Australia, UK and India. Are there any other parts of the world where men's rights is an issue? If there are, i'm sure we can find sources. If not, we can remove the notice. Either way, it may be a good idea to beef up the sections about non-US issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Synthesis: Yes, this appears to be a problem. What is needed is to try to limit the conclusions we draw from sourced statements, unless the sources themselves draw those conclusions. It should be a fairly easy problem to fix, but I would suggest going after the low-hanging fruit first. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Original research: The OR problem in this article seems to be a synth problem. There are very few uncited statements, and I can't find a single OR issue that isn't also synthesis, making this particular tag redundant. Unless there are objections, i'll remove it once I finish reviewing the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Neutrality: This does appear to be a problem, but a minor one. I see lots of weasel words, and the focus of the article seems to focus on a few very narrow issues that men have with modern society. I would love to see the history section beefed up, and the sections on MRM issues expanded with more data and conclusions from the many studies that have been done. The domestic violence and child custody sections in particular could be bolstered significantly; hundreds (thousands?) of studies have been done on both. This is going to require a pretty major overhaul though, so the tag should probably stay in place for now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, please let me know what you think. The article is a mess, and those unsightly tags certainly aren't helping anything. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is a section two up from this discussing these tags from last week. (And a section one up from this discussing a citation that was probably not properly supporting the text it was supposed to be citing - the tag isn't about quality of sources, but about misinterpretation of them.) Most of the tags I discussed in depth in the previous section, and it was pretty recent. I agree with you that the fancruft and embedded list tags didn't make sense. I just took out the OR tag because I do think that it's all OR-by-synthesis. I don't think the expert tag has any point to it, but will leave it for someone else to remove. Most of the synthesis is obvious and should be an easy problem to fix, but the level of pushback over trying to do so in the past has meant that I mostly gave up. ] (]) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, to throw it out again, as I did a couple sections up: I still think this article would benefit from being moved to ], ], or even fork it to both ] and the claims to ] and then reworked. It would get rid of undue weight issues for the most part (which are substantial right now if the article is just about 'men's rights', since it is almost exclusively presenting a minority POV,) and would also allow for the citation in a limited way of sources from inside the men's rights movement that would otherwise be unacceptable that would make rewriting the article easier. ] (]) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's a definite possibility. I'll have to spend some time thinking about how that would work, but I don't think forking parts of it to a "Claims of" article would be such a good idea. That's just begging to become a battleground between MRAs and feminists, and also a POV fork. Claims made by the MRM could easily be worked into the MRM article. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'd agree with Kevin's comments above that certain of these tags need to stay. The verifiability is needed because while the sources may look generally reliable, they don't support the content at times: I even found one source said the exact opposite of what it was cited to say. I also think that both Synthesis and Original Research are needed. The problem is not that the material is not cited, or that material is combined together, but that much of the content (in some sections at least) are not ''"directly related to the topic of the article"'' (men's rights, in this case) as required by ]. For example, large chunks of the section on divorce are cited to sources which make no direct link to men's rights. |
|
|
::For the same reason, I do think, if I have understood him properly, that I disagree with Wordsmith's suggestion of increasing the domestic violence and child custody sections. Yes, there are lots of studies about these, but unless a link is made to men's rights issues, we get back into the same problem we had in the fall. People from every side add their "points" and we end up with an article that is more of a back and forth about domestic violence than about men's rights. We have the ] article for that. |
|
|
::As I've said before, I completely support the notion that this article should be moved to men's rights movement. I've did a lot of research in this area earlier - before I got discouraged by the battlefield mentality - and the plain fact is that whenever you find reliable sources about "men's rights", they are 99% of the time talking about the men's rights movement and their claims. It would also open the way to more discussion of the history etc. I don't think we would want a "claims" one, which I agree would likely end up a point of view fork and a massive battleground to boot. --] (]) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, some of the tags need to stay for now, particularly synthesis and neutrality tags because the article is a mess. I disagree that all the sources have to be directly about men's rights. For example, let's say that there is a study done on "primary aggressor" laws that shows 25% of complaints against women result in the man being arrested. Even though the study might not specifically mention the MRM, it is still solid evidence of discrimination against men in domestic violence laws. Of course I don't know if such a study exists and pulled the numbers completely out of my ass, but if there is a reliable source like that it should be used in the article. |
|
|
:::I see lots of battleground mentality on the talkpage archives that seems to have compromised the article quality and driven away some good editors. I'm not going to get heavily involved in the serious content disputes that will undoubtedly erupt in the future, but as an admin I can remain impartial and help make sure that everyone on both sides plays fair and remains civil, which should attract a higher quality of discourse and hopefully improve the article's quality. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC |
|
|
::::I really, truly disagree with you that a connection to men's rights doesn't need to be made in sources, and other editors in the past on this page have concurred with this view, which is also supported by policy, as I pointed out above. We cannot have individual editors deciding what shows discrimination or deciding that something is a men's rights issue. As somebody pointed out earlier, saying we don't need the connection made in the reliable sources leaves open to somebody claiming that since menhave fewer jean styles available to them as compared to women, they are discriminated against and this is a men's rights issue. It's an farcical example but not so far from the truth. In this article we have already taken out claims about refugees, social security, parental leaves etc which nobody but individual editors had thought were violations of men's rights or discriminatory.--] (]) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree that a separate claims article is likely a bad idea, but do think that an MRM one would be a good start towards a non-totally worthless article. And I also agree with Slp1 here - using your theoretical study to support such a claim would absolutely be an example of improper synthesis (and also, probably, an inappropriate use of a primary source, unless it was a meta-analysis/review article.) When I have more time later on, I'll explain in more detail if you'd like, but I think that your example is really a pretty straightforward violation of ]. ] (]) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would very much like to hear your reasoning in more detail, though I think my previous statement may not have been as clear as I would like. I'm not proposing that we use the sources to draw conclusions that are not in the sources themselves. However, if we have ''sources'' that say that women initiate most divorces and that it is a men's rights issue, it would be acceptable to use numbers from a general-purpose study on who initiates divorces. If we limit ourselves to studies that are specifically about the MRM, we run the risk of limiting ourselves to potentially biased sources. I'm just proposing using the nonspecific studies to provide numbers and statistics, not to draw conclusions from them. We use arguments that sources themselves use. To quote ], "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed. Opposition research cannot be the basis for an article. ] (]) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename article to Men's Rights Movement, also serious article issues == |
|
|
{{archive top|result=Result of the discussion is to '''Move''' (rename); regarding the other items, the result is slightly less clear. There seems to be broad general support for the suggested changes, but there is considerably less discussion and views are not as clear. I suggest you move the article, then ] make each of the discussed edits/changes one at a time. Should there be dissent, then that change should be discussed and a resolution found. Suggest you not attempt to combine multiple content issues in one discussion, but have a separate discussion for each issue (again, this is if there is dissent.) ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) }} |
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and I feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as ] issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 14:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, because the current scope of the article is only dealing with the men's rights movement. In the lede, it states: |
|
|
|
|
|
*''Men's rights have been the subject of a variety of social and political movements, including men's liberation, profeminists, mythopoetic men's movement, gay male liberation, Promise Keepers, men's rights movement, and antifeminism.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
So how come there is ZERO information in the article about all those things, except for the men's rights movement? In the ''Issues'' section it blatantly states "men's rights movement" and doesn't say anything about all the rest of the things associated with men's rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
If someone wants to counter with ], I wanted to open this up to discussion because of the ] and see users more experienced than me give their ideas on this. I can see this going two ways: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Men's Rights, sans Men's Rights Movement, is a notable enough subject that it deserves its own article. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Men's Rights should not give ] weight to only one aspect of it (namely, the Men's Rights Movement), and not also discuss antifeminism, profeminism, and other things associated with Men's Rights. Especially since the Men's Rights Movement isn't a mainstream accepted movement, so how come the are granted a monopoly on the term "Men's Rights"? |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Content ==== |
|
|
As far as reliable sources go, I must say that some of them are no good, and I'm going to start removing them in a few days if nobody pipes up with a good reason to keep them. Here's a breakdown based on section: |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Divorce ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
First sentence seems okay, but the second sentence seems off. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Rich Doyle wrote of the view... |
|
|
|
|
|
Who is Rich Doyle and why does his opinion matter? He doesn't have a Wiki Article, and a Google search doesn't bring up anyone with prominence. |
|
|
|
|
|
The next paragraph begins: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture... |
|
|
|
|
|
This paragraph seems out of place. Okay, it's just a bunch of facts about alimony. '''What does this have to do with Men's Rights or the Men's Rights Movement'''? Is there anyone notable within the MRM who is using these facts to argue for his/her cause? I say this paragraph should be taken right out unless someone can show me some relevancy. |
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph continues: |
|
|
|
|
|
*In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights crusades to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. |
|
|
|
|
|
This statement is cited to |
|
|
|
|
|
*Levitz, Jennifer. (October 31, 2009). "The New Art of Alimony." Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 25, 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, this source makes NO mention of Men's rights or the Men's Rights Movement. Also, using the word "crusade" here seems a little bizarre and definitely not ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The same citation is used for the following statement: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question. |
|
|
|
|
|
Come into question BY WHO? Again, the source doesn't mention Men's Rights or the Men's Rights Movement, so it seems strange to be using the passive voice here. And again, the paragraph this statement is in doesn't even provide context... all it does is state the facts about how the workforce is changing, but there is no mention of how this is relevant to the men's rights movement at all. If there are MRM leaders who take issue with this, they should be quoted and sourced. Simply presenting these "facts" is not enough; there needs to be relevance. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Anti-Dowry Movement ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
The section on the SIFF looks great as far as I can tell, except for that one unsourced statement with a citation needed tag. That needs to be removed but I'll give it a few days before it gets taken out. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Reproductive rights ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section entirely makes NO mention of Men's Rights or the Men's Rights movement. Is there anyone notable within the movement who has discussed reproductive rights in this context? Otherwise, this is ] and the only ones linking this issue with the Men's Rights Movement are the editors who added it to the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I say this section should also be removed entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Adoption ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
First sentence is fine, but why is Oregon's adoption laws randomly brought up? Is there MRM presence in Oregon (or elsewhere) that is challenging these laws? Yet again, we're just presented with facts, and ''not why they are relevant''. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second sentence should be removed, and also MRM activists (or father's rights, whoever is taking up this cause or discussing it at all) need to actually have their views presented here. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Child Custody ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
No source for this statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
The rest of that paragraph is fine though, except for the last line. I think it should be changed to be front-loaded at the beginning of the section with the "Main Article: x" arrangement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second paragraph is also fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
But then at the very end of this section, there is this: |
|
|
|
|
|
*In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, we see some random fact being brought up without its relevance being linked. Needs to be taken out unless there is someone in the MRM specifically citing this fact as evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Parental Abduction ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing of concern here. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Parental leave ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
No relevance to the MRM is being shown here. Also, |
|
|
|
|
|
*The most liberal... |
|
|
|
|
|
what/who is calling this "liberal"? Needs to be reworded or shown why a political term is needed here, especially when referring to countries. |
|
|
|
|
|
I say this section should be struck out entirely, for the same reasons I've discussed earlier (no MRM rep tying it together). |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Paternity fraud ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
No relevance to the MRM is established. Needs to be removed entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Health ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*They state that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's. |
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what the source says: |
|
|
|
|
|
*"In the language of men's rights organizations, the feminist-inspired privileging of women's health issues has relegated men to the sidelines of medical policies and condemned them to infirmity and premature death." |
|
|
|
|
|
Why reword it? Why not just quote the source directly on this? Also, the MRM never said this directly. Rather, Susan B. Boyd the author of the source, is ''characterizing'' the men's rights organizations as saying this. This needs to be made clear (she doesn't have a wiki article and I don't see any sources which state that she is a men's rights activist or identifies as one). If a representative of the MRM is saying something, that should be made clear. If someone from outside is discussing the MRM, this should be made clear. Best way is to simply present the people who are saying things, and avoid just attributing everything to the "men's rights movement". |
|
|
|
|
|
The rest of the paragraph is worse, using the word "they" when the sources are of people from outside the movement discussing the movement. The sources need to be properly used here. |
|
|
|
|
|
The third paragraph also seems out of place, but this whole section is a mess so I think it's better to leave it alone until the first two paragraphs are fixed, then we can decide its relevancy. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Education ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, first sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Men's rights activists describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation as compared to girls. |
|
|
|
|
|
The source is an interview of Warren Farrell. As in, one person expressing his views on the issue. So why does this say "Men's rights activists" and not "Warren Farrell, a men's rights activist, blah blah"? And even then, there is no mention of "men's rights" or "men's rights movement" in the interview. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system." |
|
|
|
|
|
Source does not say that. The book's description states: |
|
|
|
|
|
*This book offers an illuminating analysis of the theories, politics, and realities of boys' education around the world -- an insightful and often disturbing account of various educational systems' successes and failings in fostering intellectual and social growth in male students. Examining original research on the impact of implementing boys' education programs in schools, the book also discusses the role of male teachers in educating boys, strategies for aiding marginalized boys in the classroom, and the possibilities for gender reform in schools that begins at the level of pedagogy. Complete with case studies of various classrooms, school districts, and governmental policy programs, the detailed essays collected provide a look into education's role in the development of masculinities, paying special attention to the ways in which these masculinities intersect with race, class, and sexuality to complicate the experience of boys within and outside of a classroom setting. |
|
|
|
|
|
No mention of men's rights, no mention of men's rights advocates, no mention of the men's rights movement, and no mention of feminism. None of the authors of the book, as far as I can tell, are related to the men's rights movement, nor has anyone made that relation. So again, even if it were the case that those topics are discussed in the book, we fall into the issue of people who aren't in the MRM describing it, and instead it being described as what the MRM represents itself as. |
|
|
|
|
|
*They have also urged for clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including single sex classes, and stricter discipline. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the source is someone from outside the movement putting words into the MRM's mouth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Final sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
*In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government policy documents; less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is again sourced to the book I described earlier, so the same issues are rehashed here. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Military conscription ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men. |
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what the source states. Also, again, we have that article-wide issue of people putting words into the mouth of the MRM, and its not being described as such. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second paragraph seems okay. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Governmental structures ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, this suffers from taking everything and ]ing all together as one, singular, view of "men's rights groups" with no regard for the sources. The actual groups can be, and should be named here. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Domestic violence ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*Since the late 1970s and 1980s men's rights activists have asserted, based on academic studies, that the incidence of domestic violence and murders committed by women is under-reported, partly due to men's reluctance to admit being victims. |
|
|
|
|
|
This statement has three sources: two books, and a Guardian article. The Guardian article is ''great'', because it specifically offers the POV of men's rights activists straight from themselves. However, the first book, "Politics of Masculinity", isn't even on the same subject. The citation links to a section on gay pornography. And the second one, seems fine but it's a misrepresentation because it's clear that it's being critical of the MRM, yet this isn't mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this section in general isn't providing enough context. It jumps from MRM groups in India to the United States without even mentioning it. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Allegations of rape ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
*and have campaigned to increase the level of evidence required to support rape and domestic violence cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
The statement here is sourced twice, but I'm concerned about the second one. This book, "Men and Masculinities", doesn't even mention the phrase "men's rights activists". Instead, it gives a list of various organizations and categorizes them as antifeminist. This should be noted in the article here. |
|
|
|
|
|
*They protest the naming of accused rapists while providing the accuser with anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
|
The source doesn't mention MR or MRM. And "they" is problematic on its own. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Social security and insurance ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
Again with problems about someone assigning positions/words to the MRM instead of the MRM itself speaking on the issue. Wording needs to reflect that. The part with Warren Farrel is exactly what I'm talking about, in terms of how this ought to be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Female privilege ====== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section seriously lacks context. Are MRM claiming that male privilege no longer exists worldwide, or are they limiting this claim to certain societies, or something else? The source isn't clear on it. Perhaps a better source can clarify this? |
|
|
|
|
|
===== History ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is this at the end of the article, and not at the beginning as is standard format? Don't have much to say about it though. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Overall=== |
|
|
|
|
|
When someone makes a claim, that someone needs to be identified, rather than simply be described as a "men's rights advocate". This can definitely become a great article as long as the positions of MRM activists are made clear and distinct from outsiders speaking about the MRM. This seems to be an systemic issue of this subject in general because it seems that the people who actually make up the movement are laymen, while the ones who are describing the movement have academic backgrounds. This dichotomy should be exemplified in this article. ] should provide helpful guidance as to handling this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the sake of clarity, please don't respond within the comments I have made, and instead respond below and reference the section. Thanks. I'm going to leave this up for a few days, if nobody bites, I'm going to ] and make all the changes myself.--] (]) 14:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
*'''Support''' Overall I largely agree.--v/r - ]] 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support''' ('''Uninvolved editor responding to RfC.''') in general-- but perhaps with more structure than suggested: |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Prevailing Usage and lack of authoritative sources''' |
|
|
: It seems that, overwhelmingly, the term is used to refer to child custody matters and, secondarily with domestic violence as relates to child custody. |
|
|
::* Problematic with sourcing is that those groups are almost entirely Internet-based and lack of common affiliation. |
|
|
::* For example, a typical Men's Rights group will have an Internet presence, established by attorneys or local bar associations, have no meetings, no office, the membership is usually unknown, and members or supporters are affiliated only for as long as a custody battle is being waged. |
|
|
::* Because custody and domestic violence concerns vary by State law and local court procedures, little unity has been attempted, so there are few recognized authorities. |
|
|
::'''Anecdotal and Statistical verses Organizational Research''' |
|
|
:: I do not have the sources at hand, but researched this a bit a few years ago: |
|
|
::* 1) US government statistics on domestic violence are taken from Women's Shelter intakes, and therefore do not ''directly'' include statistics for male victims of DV. |
|
|
::* 2) US Federal funding provides County-level courts which are restricted to enforcing and increasing child support, but forbidding decreasing child support or enforcing custody. Such matters are anecdotal to the article-- and that seem the problem-- they do not apply to an organization, or an authority to be sourced. |
|
|
:: Probably thousands of men's rights groups exist, and yet there is no umbrella under which they fall, no equivalent of the ''National Organization for Women''; and so we are left with an article attempting to define a broad range of issues, of which only a few have any organizational efforts, and virtually none have common organizational support-- and that leaves the article in this scattered state. |
|
|
:: Have I re-stated the problem with useful accuracy? |
|
|
:: ] ] 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support rename''', and a lot of the rest of what you say. I've thought a rename was a good idea for quite a while. Disagree on one set of points: it's okay to use sources outside of the men's rights movement to describe the men's rights movement. We have no policy that suggests that we should only use statements of people inside of a movement to describe the movement. We should use statements made outside of the MRM to describe the MRM in this article for two reasons: first, ] requires it, and second - there just aren't enough ] written from within the MRM to write a solid article using them. I'm not saying all the current instances where it's done are appropriate (in general, I think it's better to trash about 90% of this article and start over,) but there are certainly instances where it is appropriate and necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's a good example of appropriate use of non-MR sources talking about MR in the education section: when the last sentence (about Australia vs the UK) was originally added, I was skeptical of it, so I went and checked the source. The source explicitly and completely supports the sentence: it explicitly says that men's rights discourse has had a large effect on Australian education politics, but less of an effect on UK education politics. The publisher of the book is ], an academic press. It's a high quality reliable source that explicitly supports the statement that it makes, which is an interesting and encyclopedic bit about men's rights discourse w/r/t education that couldn't easily be sourced to any author or organization inside the MRM. (It's also a good example of why you have to actually look up citations, not just their abstracts or book summaries. The summary of the book doesn't mention men's rights, but the page cited does.) And it doesn't, by our policy, matter that the authors are not identified as being part of men's rights discourse themselves, as long as they meet our standards for reliability (and as academics they do) and their text explicitly supports the citation. ] (]) 20:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the input people. I want to give it at least until this weekend so that editors at peak hours have a chance to give their input before I start nuking the article. Also, Gorman, what I was trying to say is that we should model this article more similarly to the ] article. I think a great takeaway from that article is that there's no "proponents vs critics" sort of dichotomy. Instead, each person who says something is personally identified, and there's no "identity politics" factor of grouping a whole bunch of people with separate opinions/insights together. This, to me, seems to best way to avoid ]. Here in the Men's Rights article, instead of identifying people, we have "Men's rights activists say x", rather than "gender studies scholar Y considers the men's rights movement to be Z." which would be a more accurate telling of the sources.--] (]) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The best way to approach this depends largely on the specific example involved. I am generally a fan of explicitly naming sources when the material involved is explicitly opinion (that's not held by a majority of reliable sources,) but it's not necessary in all other instances. If a recognized scholar in the field of men's studies/some related field says "The men's rights movement is misogynistic" or "The men's rights movement is a necessary counterbalance to gender feminism" then we should only include that with an explicit mention of who they are. But if the statement in a ] is more to the effect of "The modern men's rights movement has had significant effect on public policy in Australia," then attributing that statement to a specific source is generally not necessary, it's okay just to say that in the article as fact. There's a specific policy that backs this idea up, but I can't think of it offhand - I'll dig it out tomorrow or so if you'd really like. (And to reiterate, I do agree with you that a lot of this article needs to basically be trashed. And I do agree that some things currently in the article should be attributed to specific sources/people that are not - I just don't think all should be.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As a secondary note: I'll be slow in responding to anything for the next week, because I'm flying out to DC for ]. The same will be true of many other people who would normally be commenting here. I might suggest leaving any decision on whether or not to move the article open until the 20th or so for this reason. (I do strongly support moving the article and most of the other changes you suggest, but the last RfC closed in favor of keeping the article at it's current title, so it's probably best to wait until after Wikimania concludes to make sure that most interested contributors have the opportunity to comment here before making a decision.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another thing that may be a good idea would be to start a user-space draft of what an article on the men's rights movement would look like before simply renaming this article, that all here could contribute to. That way when a rename does happen, the new article would instantly be better. ] (]) 04:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds good. I'm definitely the sort of "measure twice, cut once" type of person so I have no problem waiting until after the 20th to actually change the article. I'm thinking about using my sandbox to make my proposed changes and I'll post a link to it here once I finish it. Have fun at Wikimania.--] (]) 09:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support rename'''. It is clear that the subject of this article is the men's rights movement (as it always has been). By moving the article, it will allow people who want to cite MRM sources more latitude and will cause fewer conflicts about Original Research (since a lot of MRM talking points aren't really related to "men's rights" ''sensu stricto''). Thus it seems like a win-win situation for everyone. ] (]) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support rename'''. I'm on holiday with no computer and very limited internet. So this is just a placeholder for a longer comment towards the end of the week. I too support a rename, and agree with Kevin's concerns about some of Jason's suggestions. In particular those regarding attribution, that the best sources for the article are in fact secondary ones, where academics (for example) who have researched the movement synthesize information about them, not MRM primary sources and that '' some'' of the material stated not to be in the source given is in fact there. I will elaborate later.] (]) 18:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Okay, a quick follow up on some of Jason's proposals. |
|
|
::*Firstly, I agree with a lot of what Jason says about sections (e.g divorce, reproductive rights) that need massive reworking or deletion. I started work on better sourcing and removing original research from the bottom sections, but got discouraged at a certain point. I do think it is better to try to rewrite/rework the sections that just delete them, as there are sources out there for most of them. |
|
|
::*Next, we have to go with what the high quality reliable sources say, and the fact is that when you look for information about "men's rights", 99% is about the men's rights movement/activism. Try it, and you will see what I mean. There doesn't seem to be a subject "men's rights" which is independent of the movement or claims (unless you count very old references to "men's rights" used in much the same way as we use "human rights" these days. e.g . For that reason I support the rename, but I would just like to make clear that I don't think that there should then be separate "men's rights" page created. Based on reliable sources men's rights do not appear to be a notable subject separate from the MRM, and thus there would be clear issues of ]. |
|
|
::*As stated above by Kevin and myself, secondary academic scholarly sources are the best sources for information, and we do not need to attribute these mainstream claims to their source. Indeed, doing so can be a way of inserting POV by attempting to minimize or marginalize a viewpoint. Primary sources such Men's rights groups are not required or even very desirable given our sourcing policies see ] and ]. |
|
|
::*I've checked some of the claims that material is unverifiable and find that it isn't all together accurate. For example, the information about conscription being seen as a sign of oppression can be found exactly as cited , and Kevin has pointed out some other examples. On the other hand, checking all the refs is a good idea. I've corrected one clearly erroneous that I probably added through careless cutting and pasting of references. Sorry all. ] (]) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*No opinion. I tried this before, and would like to know why opinions changed. ] (]) 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't think any of the people who have said rename here have previously held different positions, although I'm not sure. I know I've always supported the idea of moving it. Last time consensus was against the idea, but a lot of the people who participated in previous discussions aren't participating here so far, and ] I think that the article will have a much greater chance of improvement at a MRM specific title than at MR generally, especially because it will resolve most undue weight issues and allow the use many more sources dealing with the MRM than this article title does (since it would allow things like self-published sources from prominent MRM groups to be used.) Previous talk page attempts at a rename can be found ] and ], although I think there's at least one discussion that I'm leaving out. ] (]) 01:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have consistently supported the move. No changed opinions here. ] (]) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''': the problem with the article is that everything is attributed to "The men's movement..." or "Men's rights groups..." or "Men's right's activists..." The discussion of basic human rights for men in the article has been reduced to pathetic men whining for special treatment. We need to review the sources and rewrite the article so that this POV is removed. The POV that there is no such thing as men's rights---only complaining by disgruntled deadbeat fathers.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::*The problem with your suggestion is that per ] we have to follow what reliable sources say and use about the subject of men's rights; and the fact is that in virtually every "men's rights" search for ] I have done, the sources found attribute claims to men's rights activists, the MRM etc. Obviously WP can't turn around and make those claims in its editorial voice without that attribution. That would really would be a violation of ], which requires us to ''"carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately."''. ] (]) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::(already supported, above) A thought... Given the experiences of the contributors, and especially in concern for those who opposed, is there any way forward for a Men's Rights article which is divorced from the sometimes marginalizing characterizations of activism and hate groups?--] ] 02:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Honestly, it all has to start with research and finding the best sources and then writing a good encyclopedic summary from there. It is a serious mistake to start by having ideas about the content, tone etc without first doing the research to find out what is out there to summarize. The latter route leads to an incomplete, POV article. I'm not exactly clear what your idea is, cregil, but as I've said a few times, in the sources I've seen "men's rights" are rarely, if ever, divorced from MR activism and activists, so I don't think that part of your suggestion is possible. However, based on informal research I think the sources are clear that there are a variety of opinions within the men's rights movement; and I can't remember seeing the term "hate groups" in any of the reliable sourced literature, so I doubt that has to be included. But it all has to start with sources, and more sources. --] (]) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I am in agreement. To clarify, I researched a bit on this subject a few years back. I received an email from a British author of a book on the subject, suggesting I might wish to do some research. What I found of strictly "Men's Rights" was local legal resource sites for men who were victims of spousal abuse and men who were unable to enforce custody of their children. Those groups also tended to help with determining paternity and such other matters which did not specifically address rights, or lack thereof. Attorneys tend to run the sites with men they are helping or have helped doing clerical work as volunteers, essentially having little more than a web presence. |
|
|
|
|
|
There are countless such sites, all very similar. Beyond that, there were two books out contemporary to my research: one from a female journalist and the other by the British man. Just like the contributors to this article, I found too little "meat" -- no centralized organizational structure- and so no strong voice. I interviewed a couple of attorneys, local to me, and was given the impression that the many such organizations have neither the time nor the funding to organize-- instead attempt to hold classes on how to represent oneself, file motions, and basically make legal action as affordable as possible for men-- as juxtaposed to virtually unlimited resources for women-- at least by comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, the Men's Rights groups are out there, but the "sources" were a thousand voices saying and doing the same thing-- all anecdotal. I think it is important, but that Men's Rights has no voice is not Misplaced Pages's fault-- or responsibility. I just wish it were otherwise-- my conscience is bothering me.--] ] 20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support rename'''. Not just because the article is already written about the ''men's rights movement'' but because – as Slp1 points out above – that is what you find if you search for "men's rights". The previous RfC about a rename proposal took place last year and ended with an inexplicable decision. Only a few people voted ''oppose'' while the clear majority presented persuasive arguments in favor of a rename, but the closing admin must have overlooked those. --] (]) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
By my reading, this RFC should be closed with a consensus to move the article. If no one objects to this, I'll write up a longer closing statement and carry out the close in the near future. (If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free :)) ] (]) 06:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Given everything, I think it would be better if we got someone uninvolved to determine consensus and close it up. Killerchihuahua was watching over this from an admin perspective; I think I'll ping them and ask it they might do it. I hope that is okay. --] (]) 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anti-feminism? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I highly doubt that the majority of men's rights supporters are anti-feminist. The entire idea of men's rights is that men and women should be equals. If not, then ] should be described as an umbrella term, including "anti-masculism", as well as ], ], etc. The entire gender equality debate is far from equal and fair. ] (]) 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article doesn't say that a majority of men's rights supporters are anti-feminist; it says that men's rights has been the focus of a number of social movements, including anti-feminist ones. Besides the (kind of haphazard) cites already in the article, this claim is explicitly supported by "Messner, Michael. Politics of masculinities : men in movements. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1997, pg42." It doesn't matter what the article on ] says; we go by what sources say, not by some sort of weird forced equality. If sources treat subjects differently, than so do we. ] (]) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then I guess the issue is much bigger than what's on Misplaced Pages. The double standard is appalling. Maybe Misplaced Pages needs to reconsider what it considers "neutral sources". ] (]) 23:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you think there's an appalling error or horribly incorrect point of view in multiple sources that meet our reliability standards, then the easiest way to fix it it to go write a book (and get it published through a reputable press,) or an academic journal article or something else that meets our standards for reliability that explains what the error is and why it's an error. You could go to ] or another appropriate forum and try to suggest a change to our sourcing policies, but our sourcing policies are difficult to convince people to change, and I'm honestly not sure what standard could be set that would exclude Messner or some of the other sources used here anyway - Messner is a professor at USC writing within his own field in a book published by a reputable press. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Tangentially, I cited the wrong page number. The statement in Messner's book that supports the statement you object to is found on page 41, not 42. (I haven't looked indepth at the citations for the statement that are already in the article, but I'd imagine they support it too.) ] (]) 23:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Improper closure of discussion regarding a move of this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
As one who did not take part in the discussion about moving this article (see above), I am deeply concerned about the procedure adopted. The settled way to decide on a page move is through the mechanism of ]. This correct procedure was followed in November 2011 (see ]). The proposed title then was the same as this time around, except with capitalisation that accords with ] ("Men's rights movement"). The closing admin's summation (with my underlining): |
|
|
<blockquote>The result of the move request was: not moved. The article has changed significantly since the majority of the comments were posted. The majority of the current article is not about the men's rights movement per se. <u>A new move request may be proposed</u>, although a separate article on the movement itself (separate from the rights) would probably be a less contentious undertaking. Aervanath (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
Disregarding established procedures, admin KillerChihuahua (whose impartiality has not been demonstrated) closed the irregular discussion with this wording (again with my underlining): |
|
|
<blockquote><u>Result of the discussion is to Move (rename)</u>; regarding the other items, the result is slightly less clear. There seems to be broad general support for the suggested changes, but there is considerably less discussion and views are not as clear. <u>I suggest you move the article</u>, then boldly make each of the discussed edits/changes one at a time. Should there be <u>dissent</u>, then that change should be discussed and a resolution found. Suggest you not attempt to combine multiple content issues in one discussion, but have a separate discussion for each issue (again, this is if there is <u>dissent</u>.)</blockquote> |
|
|
This amounts to a subversion, unwitting or not, of due process. In prejudicial language. The proposed move was not advertised to the community in the expected way, so many editors who would have contributed here may not have done so. It also defies a ruling by the closing admin on the "official" RM last time (see what I have underlined).<br>I call on KillerChihuahua to revise or remove her closure and comments of the recent discussion; and I call on editors ''not'' to move the page without a new RM conducted by the protocols of ]. It would be entirely fair for any premature move to be reverted, by whoever wants to do that.<br><br>♥<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This discussion has been open since 10 July; ad there is zero need for RM when the article already has competent editors who can move it. You state you have no opinion; then your complaint is procedural, and I assure you there is no strict procedure for this. You are tilting at windmills. the only reason I didn't move the darn thing already is because I was called away. Now I return to find my ethics are being called into question? This is surprising to say the least. RM is only for when you canNOT move the page yourself. There is no "procedure" one must follow. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Killer: |
|
|
::<blockquote>"This discussion has been open since 10 July; ad there is zero need for RM when the article already has competent editors who can move it."</blockquote> |
|
|
::Sheer opinion. Why have an established RM process, if it is not necessary to use it even when an admin has said that is what ought to be done (in closing the 2011 RM)? |
|
|
::<blockquote>"You state you have no opinion; then your complaint is procedural, and I assure you there is no strict procedure for this."</blockquote> |
|
|
::And I can assure you that you are wrong. Check ], and check another admin's ruling on closing the 2011 RM. You do not show any justification for acting against that procedural ruling. Such an action has recently come before ArbCom, with the result that one admin lost his admin rights. |
|
|
::<blockquote>"You are tilting at windmills."</blockquote> |
|
|
::You compound your offences with gratuitous incivility. |
|
|
::<blockquote>"Now I return to find my ethics are being called into question?"</blockquote> |
|
|
::Now, yes. ☺ |
|
|
::<blockquote>"RM is only for when you canNOT move the page yourself. There is no 'procedure' one must follow."</blockquote> |
|
|
::A curious opinion. Do you have any others to declare? Care to test this one at ]? |
|
|
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please cite the ArbCom ruing you think I am going against. Please be concise. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I note (not without irony) that you probably mean "precise". ]. I commend the whole of the final decision to you, for your careful and reflective consideration. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, by god, I mean concise! You quoted me (a post which was clear to link to and on the same page) at length, and gave a wall of text with a ton of whitespace the first 2 posts you made in this section. I meant concise. Which finding of that case? ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::KC, I find myself wondering whether you've carefully perused the recent discussion and last year's RM. And this statement is a problem: "RM is only for when you canNOT move the page yourself." RMs are proper and useful where there's a likelihood that editors will want to discuss the proposal, even if, technically, the page could be moved without community input. I came here after seeing your unexplained but very possibly WP:POINTY and threatening post on Noetica's talk page. Disappointing. ] ] 03:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: My post on his page was in response to his posts . Requesting he move forward with this is quite reasonable, given that now that he has raised the issue there needs to be either withdrawal (by him) or resolution (by others.) I fail to see how that is in any way POINTy, as it disrupts nothing and requests that rather than threatening me to take it to ANI, he do so, as is appropriate. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Adding: it is completely beyond my comprehension how that could be taken as "threatening". I was asked to come here, I did what I was asked to do, and now I'm getting grief from both of you for doing what I was asked to do. If anyone felt further input was needed, it would have been preferable to say so during the past month. External input is not generally sought for decisions about a page, those decisions are generally handled by the regular editors of that page, and outside input sought only if that fails, However, no one brought it up then. Failing that, Noetica could have raised concerns in a civil fashion, rather than "calling on me" to recerse myself and making wild accusations. There was no need to approach any concerns in such an insulting and accusatory fashion. Your framing of my post on her page as "threatening" or "pointy" is ... I have no words. This is an astonishing reaction to an admin responding to a request. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::the more I think about this the more astonished I am. His very first post to me about this insults and accuses me, and concludes "I hope I don't have to take this to ANI" and my response "Waiting on you" is a THREAT? Tony, I thought you had better judgment than that. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I'm frankly boggled by the suggestion that a formal RfC with almost universal agreement closed by an uninvolved administrator is not a sufficient process to move an article. Trying to procedurally disagree with a consensus to move a page established by a formal RfC is borderline ludicrous. Any editor with an interest in this topic who wanted to comment has had ample opportunity to comment: there was a formal RfC open for the maximum duration of a formal RfC (the tag itself was removed by a bot) and the RfC discussion itself was open for literally more than a month. Anyone who wanted to comment on this article who had it watchlisted, who looked at RfCs, or who even looked at the article at least once a month had plenty of opportunity to reply. (Coincidentally, I don't see anything at ] that suggests that administrators who are uninvolved on the surface need to somehow conclusively demonstrate their impartiality, especially in a case like this where any reasonable reading of consensus would agree with their reading. And I see nothing in Aer's original decision that would contradict KC's decision in anywhere near a substantial enough way as to invalidate it, especially given the year+ gap between them.) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to take this to ANI, please go ahead and take it to ANI. But please go ahead and do so now if you feel it needs to be done. ] (]) 04:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. There was nothing "irregular" about the discussion. Page moves have been decided on article talk pages since the beginning of Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think ] is the more "irregular" of the two options, but both are valid means of seeking consensus for an article move. ] (]) 04:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, it is irregular to bypass the RM process if the article has already entered that process – and, as in this case, the closing admin had said "a new move request may be proposed". Most people expect that such directives will be followed, and many look out for further RMs on the same article at the usual location: ]. I gave my opinion at the last "official" RM, and I did not think I would have to look anywhere other than WP:RM for any follow-up. That was a reasonable expectation, especially given the closing remarks that time. I have no opinion on the ''present'' version of the proposal, considering what new evidence and argument might have been exhibited; I, and others who watch RM activity closely, had no reason to suspect that things might proceed ''this'' way, without any open presentation to the community at WP:RM. One thing is certain: the styling with capitals has not been considered by MOS specialists. Given the forking in procedural paths, must that issue now go to a third consultation of community opinion? Very messy. Why did Killer not attend to this styling difference between the "official" RM and this irregular one? That is something an admin judging these matters ought to be on top of. Finally, how does any page move issuing from the recent process fit with the newly instituted review process for RMs (see ])? A sort of "constitutional crisis" – and one that would be completely unnecessary if there had been continuity of process with the "official" RM of 2011, as the closing admin seems to have determined would be the way to go. |
|
|
::♥ |
|
|
::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Where is this "formal RfC with almost universal agreement closed by an uninvolved administrator"? I don't see it. ] (]) 09:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Above. the darn thing was open so darn ling that the bot removed the tags. That's why I was asked to close it. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::(edit conflict) It's above. . I agree that there is no problem with this RFC. The previous closer explicitly stated that a new discussion could be held, and it was. A new editor set up a properly advertised article RFC (which is amazing enough in itself) which attracted outside editors, ran for a full month, and now has been closed by an independent administrator. I'd also note that despite Noetica saying they had no opinion on the topic now, they opposed the move at the last move discussion. . Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and there is no need or rule for RM's to follow Noetica's preferred procedure. ] (]) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
− |
|
|
:::You do realize there is more than one way to do most things on Misplaced Pages, Noetica? Take deletion. If I see an article which falls under SD criteria, I can delete it, no tag needed. Or someone ele could see it and tag it. Or it could go through prod, or Afd. The same with moves. Even if a prior request had been made at RM, I could move without even a formal Rfc, if I were ] and thought the editors of the page would generally agree with me, and I would not be breaking process at all, let alone causing a "constitutional crisis". Really, truly. Someone might tell me I'd been a bit hasty, and should have sought consensus, but that's all. And this is more than enough process for this move to happen. If you really want to be sure you are included on any page's major (and minor) changes, you will watchlist that page. Any other method will not work. Pages are moved, merged, and even deleted without showing up on pages like RM, and Afd. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, I see now that you've been told before, when you expressed concerns "procedure" was't followed at an Rm that we're not big on process here, and rms are often reversed in later discussions.] and the linked discussion shows me that you have a problem accepting that there is no one right procedure for moves. I'm sorry if it upsets you, but allow me to confirm that is the case. Not only can a fresh Rm be opened, but also this can be done by Rfc (as here) or with simple discussion on the talk page, or even boldly by one editor. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::KC, a more collegial style of talk-page engagement would be much appreciated. ] ] 12:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Indeed. I object to be accused of "serious impropriety" and breaking process and having what was clearly meant to be a threat to "take this to ANI" - as though ANI were a stick to beat me with - on the first communication from Noetica; I object to my request to please do so in order to resolve this as "POINTy" and "threatening" by you; I request that you specify what part of ''my'' post above to which you are replying you find non-informative and non-collegiate. It seems obvious based on posts here and elsewhere Noetica is laboring under the impression that there is a strict procedure to be followed for page moves. I am seeking to disabuse him of this false impression and explain, as lucidly as I can, that this is not the case. To what in that do you object? Please be specific. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
(]) This is beginning to look more and more irregular. First, I don't see it listed either at ] or ] or at ], where the person closing would be expected to review, summarize, and announce the results of the discussion. A template seems to have been placed for the discussion but I don't see the "brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template". |
|
|
|
|
|
Also the advice to "keep your statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response" does not seem to have been followed, since the section that is supposed to be the RFC is titled "Rename article to Men's Rights Movement, also serious article issues". The lead sentence of the section is "Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject," which makes it look like some sort of content discussion. Nowhere in the section title does it say either "Requested Move" or "Request for comment". |
|
|
|
|
|
More problems appear in the discussion. It appears the proposal is to change both the content and the title of the article. Why not just start a new article? Some of the comments address the title; others address the content. Yet, how can you reach consensus on a title without knowing what the article is about? This same problem was noted in the ], which was the reason the article was not moved at that time. As a side note, I count 30 editors participating in the previous RM, but only 7 in the above "Rename article to Men's Rights Movement, also serious article issues" section. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I think I have found the original RFC statement now. Diff: "Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and I feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as WP:SYNTH issues." A move request is not mentioned here. Also the OP stated the intention of making the changes to the article within a few days, but has not yet done so. Where does this leave the article content with respect to the title? |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, KillerChihuahua has been asked to do something, but admins are not under any obligation to honor every request made of them. At this point it is now clear that the title change is a potentially controversial proposal (and ] is probably a better policy to cite here) and that the RFC, if that's what it was, should be properly closed. Then a proper RM should be submitted per ], preferably after reaching a consensus about the article content. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regards, ] (]) 14:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Without addressing the rest of your comment,s on Misplaced Pages ''Move'' and ''Rename'' are synonyms, so the fact that the primary topic under consideration was a move is in the very subject line. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The procedure for closing an Rfc is found at ]. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Note:''' the 2 posts above were a reply prior to change. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not sure what the point is of making comments about minor edits that do not change the meaning of the text, when they are readily viewable in the history, but yes, the above edit added a carriage return to the first paragraph and the word "this" to the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. Diff: . For those who are keeping track, I have also removed a comma from the second paragraph.Diff: ] (]) 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You have read by now that the reason you don't see it listed anywhere is because it was listed for 30 days, and that ran out 4 days ago, right? If you missed this, then allow this post to enlighten you. If you already saw this, apologies for belaboring the point. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sidenote: of '''course''' the previous RM had more participants than this one. When the previous RM was run, this article was the subject of an ANI thread that was longer and more active than anything else at ANI at the time. Are you suggesting that for any consensus about this article to have legitimacy, it needs to blow up to that level of drama every time? ] (]) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Blow up to that level of drama"? "ANI thread"? I don't see it. Maybe one of these? ] (]) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] was running at the same time as the previous move discussion. It brought far more eyes to this article than it normally gets, as would be expected with any long ANI thread. Without a long ANI thread (and for that matter, threads on most other major ENWP boards and a few mailing lists,) there's no way the previous discussion would have had thirty participants. The lower (7 vs 30) level of participation in this discussion doesn't indicate it was poorly advertised or illegitimate - it just indicates that there wasn't an equivalent explosion associated with it. ] (]) 17:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Very interesting, and an influx of newly created editors as well, but I notice that some of the websites for recruiting the new editors are now down or inactive. And I don't see a history of disruption as a good enough reason to ignore process and invoke WP:IAR. If anything, you want more eyes on this to catch potential mis-steps such as the ones Noetica has pointed out. And you don't want to give even the appearance of railroading the discussion. I have some more thoughts on the subject, but must go out for a while. ] (]) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Excuse me? Who suggested that a history of disruption was an excuse to ignore process and invoke IAR? Noone as far as I can see. Strawman arguments are singularly unhelpful. |
|
|
:::::I'd note that the previous discussion was also numerically strongly in favour of the move (17-10) - and even stronger when you consider that several of the "oppose" editors were SPAs recruited from men's rights websites. Probably not right of me judge the arguments, but I'd say the move arguments, from a wide range of experienced editors and administrators were stronger too!! To my mind, ''that'' was the strange close. But life went on, until a completely new editor suggested moving the article too, and started an RFC. I don't see cogent reason given to why the above RFC discussion, which was posted for a full month and attracted the article's editors as well as new voices, is in any way invalid. The issue either needs to be taken to another forum, or dropped. |
|
|
:::::BTW, Noetica brought up the issue of capitalization, and I would like to say that I am very happy to take his advice about what would be the correct version of Men's Rights Movement in terms of style/capitalization etc. I can't imagine that any of the other involved editors would have a problem with stylistic changes to destination name either. --] (]) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Nowhere did I (the IP was me - I forgot to sign in) say that previous drama was an excuse to invoke IAR. The post of yours that I was replying to implied that the recent RfC lacked legitimacy because it only had seven participants instead of 30. I was disagreeing with that. If that wasn't what you were suggesting in your earlier post, then my sidenote was not relevant, but it sure seemed to be what you were suggesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Also, can you explain how running a more than month long advertised RfC that hadn't received comments for weeks before it was closed can possibly equate to even the appearance railroading a discussion? How is it possible that a 34 day, 11 hour, and 42 minute long RfC is 'railroading' a discussion? ] (]) 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::These questions have all been answered already above, very patiently, and with links to the appropriate policy pages. I don't see this discussion going in a very productive direction, so at this point I will not continue to participate. But I will respond to the incivil accusation that I have "raising a singularly unhelpful strawman" about IAR. Here is the diff: " The minor procedural points that have been brought up are easily covered by ]." And if you go to WP:NOTBURO, what do you find? "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ]." Looks to me like the link goes straight to WP:IAR. Cheers. ] (]) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No "questions were answered" - two editors voiced concern that a perfectly legitimate Rfc which was open for the max time and closed as a virtual snowball was somehow "improper" and "out of procedure" and "irregular". This is due to thinking a RM is required for a move. It is not. The Rfc is more than sufficient. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Neotarf: I never suggested that "a history of disruption..." was "..a good enough reason to ignore process and invoke WP:IAR." I suggested that failing to bring up any meaningful non-procedural reason why a 34 day RfC was insufficient was a good enough reason to invoke ]. ] (]) 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Indeed; and I further note that Neotarf appears to be either cherry-pciking or looking at the main link rather than readign that. I see "''Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus."'' as well as "''A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request."'' This is surely the rationale for Gorman citing NOTBURO. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No point brought up in this discussion so far is significant enough to necessitate a rerunning (as an RM) an advertised RfC that ran for more than a month that resulted in a clear consensus of participating editors and included more or less every editor who has made significant contributions to this page in the recent past. With a month long advertised RfC, anyone who had any interest at all in contributing to this article (or to discussions about this article) had plenty of time to do so. The minor procedural points that have been brought up are easily covered by ]. If you disagree, please take this to ANI within the next 24 hours or I will begin to implement the close. ] (]) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Action at WP:ANI concerning the RFC and its closure === |
|
|
In response to Kevin's clear deadline (for which I thank him), I have initiated an ].<br>☺♫♪!<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*Closed . ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**It might have been closed, KC, but are you drawing lessons for how to do it better next time? As an admin, you did agree to uphold a set of behavioural and leadership principles; I don't see them on display here. ] ] 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
We'll have to disagree on that one, Tony. The only thing I could have learned from this is that being the uninvolved admin on an article on article probation nets you grief, that there are people who will nitpick and wikilawyer anything, and that some people think "waiting on you" is a pointy threat. I already knew the first two, and I reject the last. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I got the notice for the ANI on my talk page, but it seems that it was opened and closed in less than a day and I didn't get a chance to explain my actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's fairly clear that I'm not a "newbie" editor as I went straight for the talk page before doing any major changes to the article. I've been an avid reader of Misplaced Pages, as well as a reader of Misplaced Pages talk pages, ArbCom cases, AN:I, among other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding my RFC, I thought I made it clear that my main problem with the article is the ''scope''. For me at least, discussing the scope of an article very much involves the article's name and the dilemma of "should we change the article to match the name, or should we change the name to match the article"? I was not simply asking for a page move, because my issue with the article is more than just move. It's clear from how people reacted to my suggested changes to the article that simply changing the article's name will not solve the article's problem. When I read the guidelines for ] it says "If possible, keep your statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response." Whether my blurb was not descriptive enough, I'm unsure of, but I reasoned that any clicking through to my RFC will read all of what I wrote and understand my stance on the name change. |
|
|
|
|
|
If I made a faux pas here and should have used ], I apologize. What is strange to me then, is that if this was the established procedure to do this, '''how come during the month-long RFC none of the users here brought it up? From 10 July to 14 August, not one of the users said anything about needing WP:RM, or anything about it really. In fact, the very first response I got was from ], an admin, who didn't mention it. I would assume that if it was an egregious violation of procedure, that this admin would have brought it up.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
In any case, I consider that enough has been said, and we've waited long enough. It's time to make considerable changes to the article. I'll begin now by using my sandbox as a mirror of this article with my proposed changes. Whether or not the name of the article ought to be changed, there wasn't anyone saying "the content is fine as it currently is", so I'm going to go ahead and start fixing that now. Thanks.--] (]) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have begun making my proposed changes to the article at my sandbox (]). I hope all interested editors will take a look there once I'm finished making my proposed changes.--] (]) 22:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm done with the first round of edits that I would like to see take place in this article. is the diff showing how I would change the article thus far. Looking for feedback. Thanks. --] (]) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't worry about what happened, Jason. Going the RFC route was fine, as almost everybody agrees. |
|
|
:As far as your sandbox is concerned, I don't think it is a good idea to do a big edit with multiple changes in multiple sections from your sandbox to the article. I agree with KillerChihuahua's close that the best way of going forward if you want to get some feedback is to start some very specific discussions about proposed edits. I'd suggest that you pick one or two specific changes that you propose (ie adding such and such a word/phrase or deleting such and such sentence/section) and make a separate heading for each here on the talkpage, explaining why you think each is an improvement to the article Then people can chime in on each individual edit, with everybody quite clear about what we are talking about. ] (]) 02:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Normally I would support being BOLD and just changing the article, but due to the article probation, I have to agree with Slp1. You don't have to specifically list every change, but at least the major additions and deletions. ] (]) 00:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Percentage Of War Casualties/Gender Differences In Combat == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible inaccuracy or misunderstanding. == |
|
''Surprised there is no mention of this. Men make up at least 95% of the victims of wars. War clearly is a men's rights issue, why is there no mention of this in the article? Also women see actual combat much much less than men, there should be a mention of this also in the article.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the first few sentences, it states "As a part of the manosphere," however, the manosphere is described as promoting masculinity and misogyny, however, under my experience, the movement has been largely quite the opposite. Many times, misogyny inside of the community, at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society. I would like to know if this is a misunderstanding on whomever added that sentence, or a misunderstanding from me of what the male rights community truly is. I personally believe that this could be fixed by a simple "Some view this as a part of the manosphere." thus being neutral, but still getting both views into the text. |
|
] (]) 07:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
:It is not yet included in this article because no one has yet added a section to the article talking about it using ] that talk about the issue in detail. (Please note that those ] do need to explicitly discuss the problem as a men's rights issue. We don't include things on this page just because editors think they are men's rights issues, since we have a prohibition against ]. We only include issues that are discussed in ] as being related to men's rights.)] (]) 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: Actually what I'd like to ask of {{user|Crwd Ctrl}} is why is this editor creating dozens of sock accounts to add BLP violations and POV to multiple articles? That, I would like to know - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::How can one person be so good at finding socks? That's what I'd like to know. Dang, you are too darn good. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: LOL - I'll admit that I actually found this sockfarm entirely by accident! - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Well, luck is as good as skill some days, and I know you're skilled as well. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm lousy at sockpuppetry stuff, but I'd like to say that I almost, very almost, detected part of this same farm last week ! I should have had more confidence in my hunch, I guess!! Ah well, another time! --] (]) 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Note: Under further, closer inspection of the article, multiple paragraphs, most of which use the words manosphere, also follow this narrative, further hinting towards either a sole individual making multiple edits or a misunderstanding on my part. ] (]) 06:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Oof == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Misplaced Pages articles should be based on ]. First-hand experience is not generally usable as that is considered ]. Since Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, we do not publish original research. |
|
Is there any kind of ] or ] policy that would allow the deletion and retroactive annihilation of this article for the sheer impossibility of getting anything done with it? Let it die, dead, and the issues will re-manifest, individually, in bite-sized portions. |
|
|
|
::This article has many sources for the connection between the MRM and misogyny. The article currently cites several reliable source (which are also ]) which have identified misogyny as a disproportionately prominent trait. Likewise, many reliable sources link the MRM and the manosphere, although the term "manosphere" is much newer than the MRM. Those sources are linked in footnotes throughout the article, and those sources are what we use to inform the article. |
|
|
::] (]) 06:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's all well and good but the whole article id designed to discredit the movement |
|
|
:::Which is why all the negative points are put up front t0 dissuade the reader |
|
|
:::Usually the article states a series of facts, and then has a separate section under the title "Criticisms" |
|
|
:::] (]) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@Montalban It is not designed to discredit the movement but summarises ]. Having a criticism section is discouraged. See ]. |
|
|
::::If you see any problems, you are free to edit as long as they use reliable sources, is ] and follows any other relevant policy. ] (]) 12:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There are many sources that highlight misandry as a common trait in Feminist circles. Why isn't that in the first sentence in the feminism artcile. To be frank, this is malicious. You will ask me for sources and once provided, you will claim they aren't credible. Who determines what sources are credible? This is why wikipedia has a massive bias issue. ] (]) 04:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Where are your sources? Predicting future events is often inadvisable because the predictions can be incorrect. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Concerning Accuracy and Understanding == |
|
Misplaced Pages grows and truth languishes. I never thought! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many times, misogyny inside of the community, "at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society". |
|
There's a theory of bureaucratic equilibria & longevity somewhere in here... |
|
|
] (]) 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As well as a questionable opinion, might not this non-NPOV be aimed at down-playing the true level of misogyny and forced masculinity within this right-wing movement? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I have begun making my proposed changes to the article at my sandbox (]). I'm done with the first round of edits that I would like to see take place in this article. . Feel free to let me know what other changes you'd like to see. Thanks. --] (]) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations 10 and 11 do not support corresponding text.. == |
|
== implementation of the RfC close == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10: SPLC does not say that some branches of MRM are not hateful. It says that some branches use legitimate grievances to draw new members in, without meaningfully addressing said grievances; "instead directing followers to blame women for everything". (To quickly locate the relevant passage, search for the word "legitimate" in the source.) |
|
In the interests of implementing the RfC close in a (relatively) timely fashion, I'm going to give this article a once-over, changing a few words to reflect the new title, and introducing a new (and fully sourced) lede focused on the men's rights movement. As soon as I've done this, I'll take care of the technical details of the move, and the article will appear at it's new title. I don't think that any of the minor changes that I am about to make will be controversial, and I think the new lede will be pretty uncontroversial too. If anyone disagrees with any of them, I'm more than happy to discuss them. Right now I'm shooting to get the article in to appropriate enough shape that it can be moved without being nonsensical, not shooting to get it anywhere near perfect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 very clearly considers MRM hateful. Not sure how it can be argued it ties to the sentence is is linked to. ] (]) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
This article is going to need a lot of changes, especially since we now have it at a title that will allow us to write a high quality article. I am intentionally not making most of those changes right now or all at once. I would encourage editors to make changes in small blocks instead of all at once, starting new talk page sections for any changes they think will be controversial (and a ''different'' new talk page section for every different type/section of changes that they are making that they think might be controversial.) That way, we can discuss and reach consensus on individual elements one at a time, instead of trying to deal with a large number of changes in the same edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Same guy who made the topic. |
|
Tangentially: I'm pretty busy in real life currently, and will be until the start of September. I won't be editing this page as much as I'd like until then, although I'll try to set aside some time to contribute before then. ] (]) 00:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:After commenting, it occurred to me that 11 might have been meant for the first part of the sentence it's linked to. However, it does not (as far as I can tell) come from the SLPC, so, while fine as a source, it seems a bit awkwardly placed. ] (]) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I ended up making more changes than I expected. I updated the contents of the lede to reflect the new article title, removed most of the content in the previous 'history' section (since it tried to deal with men's rights generally in a very hodgepodge way,) and incorporated some of the content previously in the men's rights movement section plus some new stuff in to a new history section. I intentionally left most content in, even if I thought it was inappropriate, as long as it would still make sense if the article is titled 'men's rights movement' - I just did the minimum necessary to have the article at least make sense at its new title, and a little bit of additional consolidation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 1970s and The Myth of Male Power == |
|
:Any content I deleted can still be retrieved from the history section, and I would encourage you to do so and incorporate it back in to the article if you can come up with a good way to do so. This entire article still needs a lot of work - There's a lot of content that doesn't belong in the article that is currently in it, and a lot of content that does belong that isn't in it. The lede I put in and most of the other stuff I edited is pretty crappy, this is just an absolutely basic start. Part of me hates even committing an edit with this many problems; please don't take this as an endorsement of any part of the current version, and feel free to change as needed to improve.] (]) 01:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I totally forgot that I don't have +<code>suppressredirect</code>. I've poked a few separately but figured I'd post a note here: could one of the sysops who watches this page finish up the move? I outlined what I think is the best way to do it - I just forgot I can't suppress redirects. ] (]) 01:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''In the mid-1970s, this movement began to focus on the oppression of men and less on the effects of sexism on women. This shift was influenced by author Warren Farrell and his book The Myth of Male Power. He emphasized how male gender roles disadvantaged men by forbidding them from being seen as caring or having emotion. '' ] physically couldn't have done it in 70s because it was written in 1993 year. Farrell is indeed mentioned in the source, but not that way: |
|
:::All I remember is I advocated adding MRM type content to this article, oh, a year ago. Now that we are on this article name, would anyone like to dig back and grag the meaningful stuff that was pushed aside as not relevant before? ] (]) 03:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''In 1971, educator Warren Farrell helped form the National Task Force on the Masculine Mystique within the National Organization for Women, an idea which quickly spread toover fifty local NOW chapters and provided a framework for the further development of the men’s movement. Farrell’s more lasting contribution to the growth of men’s awareness of their culturally limited options was his influential 1975 book The Liberated Man: Beyond Masculinity, which quickly assumed for men the place occupied in women’s liberation by Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique. Its publication sparked the beginning of a separate men’s literature concerned with offering theories of and solutions to male oppression. Two viewpoints characterized this body of writing: acceptance of feminist criticism of masculine status and behaviors, and calls for the restoration of ‘‘traditional’’ masculine social roles. Among the more important works produced at this time were Herb Goldberg’s antifeminist The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1976), and the anthologies The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role (1976) and For Men against Sexism: A Book of Readings (1977).'' |
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I delete the sentence from the article. ] (]) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Requested move/dated|Men's rights}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Parental Alienation == |
|
] → {{no redirect|Men's rights}} – Current title seems to define the subject in a way that overlaps with several existing articles such as ], ], and ]. This rename was recently implemented out of the normal process via an RfC. I believe there is also a POV issue with the current name as many seek to diminish the idea of "men's rights" as a legitimate issue and we are now lacking in an article treating it as a legitimate subject of discussion.] (]) 01:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article says "Others cite the discredited parental alienation syndrome (PAS) or parental alienation as a reason to grant custody to fathers; they claim that mothers alienate children from their fathers and make false accusations of abuse in order to seek revenge against fathers." This does not reflect an accurate description of parental alienation, nor has parental alienation been discredited. In fact, there is a good deal of scientific research to support the concept of parental alienation being valid. ] (]) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' The scope of this topic should not be limited to just the movement and as the Request mentions, there is already an article for that. ]-] 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
Under the first few sentences, it states "As a part of the manosphere," however, the manosphere is described as promoting masculinity and misogyny, however, under my experience, the movement has been largely quite the opposite. Many times, misogyny inside of the community, at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society. I would like to know if this is a misunderstanding on whomever added that sentence, or a misunderstanding from me of what the male rights community truly is. I personally believe that this could be fixed by a simple "Some view this as a part of the manosphere." thus being neutral, but still getting both views into the text.
Cheeseburger3 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Many times, misogyny inside of the community, "at least the one I know, has been quickly pointed out and discouraged, and a large part of the men's rights community has been actively pushing against the supposed forced masculinity from society".
As well as a questionable opinion, might not this non-NPOV be aimed at down-playing the true level of misogyny and forced masculinity within this right-wing movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.175 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
10: SPLC does not say that some branches of MRM are not hateful. It says that some branches use legitimate grievances to draw new members in, without meaningfully addressing said grievances; "instead directing followers to blame women for everything". (To quickly locate the relevant passage, search for the word "legitimate" in the source.)
Article says "Others cite the discredited parental alienation syndrome (PAS) or parental alienation as a reason to grant custody to fathers; they claim that mothers alienate children from their fathers and make false accusations of abuse in order to seek revenge against fathers." This does not reflect an accurate description of parental alienation, nor has parental alienation been discredited. In fact, there is a good deal of scientific research to support the concept of parental alienation being valid. 76.171.164.140 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
