Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:13, 23 November 2012

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

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

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

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

This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked 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 Talk:Men's rights/Article probation for further information. 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 here, under the section "Log of sanctions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute tags - further discussion needed

I've been bold 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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. 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. The Wordsmith 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. Kevin Gorman (talk) 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 Men's rights movement, Men's rights activism, or even fork it to both Men's rights movement and the claims to Claims of the men's rights movement 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. Kevin Gorman (talk) 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. The Wordsmith 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 WP:NOR. 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 domestic violence 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. --Slp1 (talk) 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. The Wordsmith 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.--Slp1 (talk) 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 WP:SYNTH. Kevin Gorman (talk) 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 WP:SYNTH, "'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." The Wordsmith 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Opposition research cannot be the basis for an article. Arkon (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am removing most of the dispute tags. If someone believes that a particular dispute tag should be included, the case for each individual tag should be made here.

In addition, if there is a problem with a particular subsection, then that subsection should be tagged, not the entire article. Memills (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At an absolute minimum, the misinterpreted citations tag must remain at the top of the article until every single citation has been verified by hand, given the number of errant citations that have been taken out of this article in the not distant past. There have been huge numbers of citations in this article where the source has not genuinely supported what it was supposed to, and a few cases where sources have said the exact opposite of what they were used to claim. There are also still severe problems with OR/synth running throughout most of the issues section, that are significant enough as to warrant tagging of the entire article. I don't think the globalize tag is applicable since the name change from "men's rights" to "men's rights movement," so I support its removal. I'm less concerned about the neutrality of the article than I have previously been given the name change, and could go either way on that tag, so I'll leave that one up to other editors. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Simply because there were problems with previous citations it does not necessarily follow that problem refs remain, and "the misinterpreted citations tag must remain at the top of the article until every single citation has been verified by hand" seems a bit heavy handed. Assume Good Faith suggests that we should assume that most of the editors who have contributed have done so with good intention and done their sourcing accurately.

I would suggest that it is incumbent on any editors who believe that problem refs remain identify which ones they are. Otherwise, this tag will remain here at the top of the page in perpetuity (I doubt that anyone is going to take the time to verify each and every ref).

Same issue with OR/synth -- exactly what subsections / passages are being referred to here? This article covers issues that are pretty much standard men's rights issues, covered in many books and articles.

So, specifically, which refs do you believe are incorrect, and, what material do you think is OR/synth? Memills (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. This article has had a huge number of citations in the past that have either been misinterpreted, outright fraudulent, or simply innocuously been attached to the wrong fact at some point in the waves of editing this page has seen in the past. Given the number of problems with citations this page has had in the past, we can't AGF that the remaining citations are accurate. Until someone has gone through and verified every single citation in this article, the tag belongs. It's fine if the tag stays in place for an extended period of time: until someone verifies that no more misinterpreted citations are in the article, it's better that we warn the reader of the danger of them than we allow readers to assume all citations are likely to be correct. Yes, verifying every single citation will likely be time-consuming for whoever does it but there's no requirement that editing Misplaced Pages articles be easy, fast, or doable without finding offline sources. (If no one beats me to it, verifying every cite is on my todo list, after I finish my intro/history rewrite.)

Many of the subsections about issues run in to OR/synth issues. As an example, the parental leave section has no source that deals with the men's rights movement or that labels discrepancies in parental rights a men's rights issue. The social security and insurance section talks about the Australian widow's allowance as an example of how government social insurance policies discriminate against men, but only cites primary source Australian government websites, not any secondary sources talking about how it's an example of discrimination against men or talking about how men's rights advocates consider it an example of discrimination against men. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Until someone has gone through and verified every single citation in this article, the tag belongs."

I really don't think that is consistent with WP policy. I don't know what you mean AGF "is not a suicide pact." It is not the burden of other editors to verify every single citation in an entire article at the behest of one, or a few, editors. Otherwise, any contentious WP article could be similarly tagged.

Rather, it is more appropriate that the editor(s) who believes that there are problems with references identify problematic ones individually. If there are indeed a good number of them in the existing article, then I see how the tag could be justified. Again, right now, the tag *for the entire article* seems heavy-handed to me. Memills (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I ever come across another article - controversial or not - where I see as many false citations as have been removed from this article in the last twelve months I'd tag it myself. When multiple citations in the recent past have been been either jumbled up or have been deliberately misleading, the tag should stay until someone can make sure that all of those citations have been removed. Our readers should be made aware that this page is likely to have incorrect citations. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Rape

"Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant"

Not one of the cited references even mentions let alone supports this statement.

"In extramarital contexts, they have suggested the signing of a "consensual sex contract" by partners before sexual intercourse in order to protect men from accusations of rape, and from child support payments if a child is conceived as a result."

The cited reference does not even mention let alone support this statement.

Unless reliable sources can be found that support these statements and also demonstrate they are not WP:UNDUE, I will remove the sentences. CSDarrow (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I've reviewed the sources and most of them are either unavailable (dead links, or pay-walled), obviously POV, are themselves unsourced or don't cite any kind of specific examples or cases, or don't support the claims.

For example, the first citation (#74) brings us to a book about the controversies of family violence, which cites the Men's Defense Association for legally challenging Minnesota's "Battered Woman's Act" for being biased against men. The book then wildly speculates that the reason is that the MDA wants to revoke resources from defending battered women. Firstly, I can't find any actual reference to this lawsuit, so I can't confirm the details. (I even searched the Minnesota Judicial Branch's case records, and went over all 12 pages on the mensdefense.org web site.) I'm not saying the book is making stuff up, but we don't have any details besides to 2 sentences in the book, one which states a matter of fact (unconfirmed) and another which attempts to reverse-engineer the motives, to glean any real understanding of the motivation for the lawsuit. If anyone can find an actual source for this claimed lawsuit, and it actually confirms the claims the the wp article, then it should replace this citation.

The second citation (#80) on the wp article isn't available for viewing. It's a Google Books link which tells you that page isn't available for viewing. Can someone else with access to this book check this reference?

The third citation (#83) doesn't seem to be available any more (just goes to a generic domain-parking search engine) and the URL isn't indexed on archive.org. I'm going to go ahead and just remove this one. Whoever has a valid link to this source is free to put it back with a working link. WP:V

The fourth citation (#84) is an obvious slander against men in standard Marxo-feminist fashion, referring to authors such as Robert Bly as "ilk", declaring with a very broad brush that men are afraid of "wonen's growing readiness to abandon marriages with men who make them miserable" and always at the fault of men due to their "emotional illiteracy", and simply asserts without reference, source or rationale, that the men's movement want's to legitimatize marital rape. If anything, this source could be used as evidence of the perceived hostility towards men that the movement objects to. It certainly isn't evidence that the men's movement endorses, condones or otherwise excuses marital rape. WP:POV

Not a single source of an actual men's activist or men's movement organization actually defending marital rape, or even coming close to excusing it. —Memotype::T 04:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: It's been while since I've edited, just realized listing the footnote numbers in my talk post wouldn't be very reliable. I remove the one I called #83 and it shifted the numbers. To clarify:

* #74 = Current controversies on family violence by Donileen R. Loseke, et al.

* #80 = "Father's Rights" by Brett Carroll

* #83 = "Complexities cloud marital rape case" by Cathy Young

* #84 (now #83) = "Straight sex: rethinking the politics of pleasure" by Lynne Segal

—Memotype::T 04:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things as important background information: WP does not require "neutral" sources for information. We seek reliable sources, which are those from reputable publishers, with a reputation for fact-checking. All of these sources meet those criteria, and indeed some of them are exactly the sort of academic material that WP are supposed to privilege. Our personal opinions and researches about the accuracy or POV of the material are not really relevant. Sources are not required to be online, and links to sources don't get deleted just because they don't work any more (See WP:DEADLINK), so I will be restoring the reference, with an updated link to Questia. However, it is quite reasonable to ask for the precise quotes for off-line sources, though if you are doubting something you sometimes might actually have to go to the library yourself. In this case, I have access to the sources, so here goes:

• This academic source discusses MRAs trying "eliminate marital rape as a crime"
• This academic source also mentions a focus on "marital rape as a crime" in the father's rights movement.
• this source has men's rights advocates "campaigning against "marital rape" as a crime."
• this source states that "Much of support has come from men's rights organizations and conservative Christian groups, which tend to argue that a crime such as marital rape should not be on the books because consent to sex is part of the marriage covenant".
• Finally, here are a few of (unreliable, primary source) websites, showing that yes, the cited reliable sources are accurate, as some men's rights activists do indeed campaign on the marital rape topic. Here are some of them: . Please note I am not suggesting using these as sources.
• This source clearly and specifically supports the "consensual sex contract" material. If you want more sources about this aspect, here are some

All in all, I don't think legitimate policy-based reasons have been given to remove this material, and I support its retention. Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have waited a week for all interested parties to contribute to the discussion. The additional citations do not improve the case for including this material imo.

(1) The case for excluding the statement on marital rape can be made on undue weight grounds alone.

From WP:UNDUE, paraphrasing Jimbo Wales,

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The citations clearly do not demonstrate that the decriminalization of marital rape is the viewpoint of the majority or of any significant adherents of the Men's Rights Movement. The citations do not mention a member of a even group at all.

(2) The case for excluding the statement on marriage contracts can be made on undue weight grounds and perhaps more convincingly in that it is not true. The only mention I find on such a contract is from the National Center for Men, (NCM), which state it was proposed to promote discussion, . The NCM, judging by its website and Web presence, does not seem to be a prominent Men's Rights Organization.

In short I do not feel that this material belongs on this page. The consensus seems to be to remove the material, which I will do. CSDarrow (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any terribly strong opinion on whether or not the material should be included, and am fine with whatever way this discussion ends up. That said, I don't think it would quite be right to describe NCM as not being a prominent organization. NCM is mentioned in at least 20 or so academic sources that I can easily find, and are mentioned in thousands of media sources ranging from 1988 to quite recently. They were responsible for Dubay v Wells and a number of other things that got quite a bit of coverage. Judging the prominence of an organization from its website doesn't work very well. I can think of plenty of major organizations with little or no web presence that are undoubtedly notable, and plenty of organizations with an extensive web presence that aren't.

I also don't think that it's accurate to describe a discussion as having reached consensus when two people support one option and one person supports the other, when both sides are presenting sound enough arguments that it's not completely obvious that one side's argument is invalid. (I don't have a problem with you removing the material based on the discussion that has happened so far, since I don't have any problem with people making changes before consensus is solidly established in most circumstances - I just don't think that you should try to describe this discussion as having reached consensus.

I have no problem with the inclusion or removal of this material, just because I view this as a really minor issue in terms of the type of issues this article is still riddled with, and thus haven't examined it in comprehensive enough detail to form an educated opinion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kevin -Perhaps I could have been clearer by saying 'majority' as opposed to 'consensus'; though a simple majority can technically also be called a consensus. Prominent means to stand out, as to whether the National Organization of Men is prominent as such is a subjective judgment. I would argue you have demonstrated they have been active but not necessarily prominent. This is an argument for another day.

I see you are an experienced Wikipedian, your views on whether this material satisfies the principles laid down by Jimbo Wales would be valuable.CSDarrow (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion, since I think the arguments being presented for removing the information are not valid, showing a misunderstanding of policy. However, since I can see the argument the material about the sex contracts might be a question of undue weight, I have attributed it to the organization concerned and added another reference. The marital rape material has multiple highly reliable sources saying that it is a tenet of at least part of the the men's rights movement, and in fact exactly fulfills Jimbo's dictum quoted above as it is/was "easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". The text does not say or imply that it "is the viewpoint of the majority or of any significant adherents of the Men's Rights Movement" nor, since WP seeks to summarize reliably sourced material about a topic, does WP seek only to reflect that "majority" viewpoint in any particular topic, even assuming that this is indeed a case of minority/majority views. Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to slp1

(1) Concerning the statement on Marital/Spousal Rape, ie

• "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of Marital Rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant."

From WP:UNDUE, paraphrasing Jimbo Wales,

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

As to whether the statement satisfies any of these conditions is a almost entirely an argument of fact and not a matter of opinion. It should be easily possible to substantiate the claim with references to statements made by Mens Rights activists or organizations; moreover I would claim the spirit of the statement made by Jimbo Wales is that there is an expectation to do so. The opinions of others that the statement is true, unsupported by citations, is not adequate.

It should be easy to find mention of MRA's actually making statements supporting the decrimilistion of Marital/Spousal Rape. It is in general not possible to prove a negative and the onus of proof is on you, however here are links to the Mission Statements and lists of MRA issues from a number of significant Mens Rights Organization:-

• National Center for Men No mention of Marital/Spousal Rape

• National Coalition of Men No mention of Marital/Spousal Rape

• A Voice for Men avoiceformen(dot)com/mission-and-values/ (URL wiki black listed) No mention of Marital/Spousal Rape

• Anti-Misandry.com No mention of Marita/Spousal Rape

• The Rights Of Man No mention of Marital/Spousal Rape, site search 'Marital Spousal Rape" produced 0 results.

• mensactivism.org An MRM news clearing house site., Site search 'Marital Spousal Rape" produced 0 results.

• Good Man Project List of MRM issues. No mention of Marital/Spousal Rape

• National Organization of Men Site search 'Marital Spousal Rape" produced 0 results.

• The Spearhead Site search 'Marital Spousal Rape" produced 0 results

• Equal Justice Foundation Site search 'Marital Spousal Rape" produced 0 results.

Basically the decimilisation of Marital or Spousal Rape is nowhere to be seen as an issue.

Not wishing to Stawman you; but I understand your argument is that, despite not being able to procure statements made by Men Rights Activists/Organization supporting marital/spousal rape, others feel that Men Right's Organization have made such statements. Moreover these claims are not supported by citations. Academics are not, as you have previously claimed, automatically given special privilege for their veracity; they sometimes publish material that is opinionated and sometimes wrong. Only the contents of reputable academic journals can automatically be considered to have been scrupulously fact checked, and even then authors are required to provide adequate citations for their claims.

All in all I feel the evidence you have presented in support of the inclusion of the statement:-

• "Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of Marital Rape, arguing that sex within marriage forms part of the marriage covenant."

is inadequate. As Jimbo Wales says it should be easy to find people who have made these statements, and you can't.

(2) Concerning the National Center for Men suggesting the signing of a "consensual sex contract", it was clearly proposed to promote discussion. See here (last paragraph)

I am removing the sentences once more. If you again revert my edit without an adequate response to the points I have made then we have reached an impasse. Unless a neutral Admin/Editor is willing to mediate this issue I will a pass it onto dispute resolution at WP:DRN. CSDarrow (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

CSDarrow - I suggest you take the matter to DRN. Repeatedly ignoring both policy and sourcing to remove material is serious. Slp1 has clearly illsutrated the sourcing for the Men's rights movement's questioning of the criminal status of martial rape. I haven't looked into the "consensual sex contract" yet, but at least the part dealing with the questioning of the law needs to stay. Slp1 has pointed out a series of issues with your understanding of NPOV I'd suggest you have a re-read of them and reconsider you position as currently it's untenable--Cailil 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Though since you have not provided a counter to my argument, other than "I think you are wrong", as you might image I have difficulty in accepting your position. CSDarrow (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry CSDarrow that is an inaccurate representation of my comment. As above the point about the criminal status of martial rape *IS* sourced. You're removing sourced text using a misinterpretation of policy, this isn't my opinion, it's what your edits are doing. As above your position is untenable and I'm suggesting that you either take it to DRN or re-read the points being made above and reconsider you position.
Please also be aware that this article (and associated topics) are under article probation - I've left a note on your talk page notifying you of this - please do have a read of the advice given about editing in topics under such probation--Cailil 00:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cailil, thank you for your response. I am always open to advice on Misplaced Pages, especially from someone as experienced as you.

Perhaps you could help me out, cause this is where I am getting stuck. A necessary condition for a majority to hold a position is that a significant minority also hold that position. Guided by the words of Jimbo Wales, if a significant minority hold a view then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. So a necessary condition for the first 2 of Jimbo Wales points to hold is the naming of prominent adherents of the view:- that marital rape should be decriminalized. I am not seeing anywhere that 3rd party opinions over ride this.

It would go a long way to bringing me round to your point of view if you could name some prominent adherents. As Jimbo Wales says it should be easy to do so and should not take up too much of your time, which I am sure is valuable. If you can not do so, then I am at a total loss as to why you hold the position you do; especially as you clearly hold it very strongly.CSDarrow (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Look CSdarrow this is quite simple, you want to exclude a properly sourced point - wikipedia doesn't allow you to do so. Any point that is sourced by multiple third party sources is verifiable. Verifiability is the corner-stone of policy on which all material is added or removed from this site, not whether it is true or widely believed. The point about the controversy about marital rape is well sourced by multiple third party source. You can see this yourself from the material you removed. Your comment above requests original research, we don't do that - we merely summarize the third party reliably sourced material on a topic. As far as I can see the issue is dealt with in Current Controversies on Family Violence by Loseke, Cavanaugh & Gelles, as well as all teh sources your edit removed.
Also please be aware speculating on what other people think or feel is utterly inappropriate. My strong feeling is about your removal of sourced content, nothing else. You may not realize it but you are digging a hole for yourself here. Your comments above are based, again, on misinterpretations of site policy. Your arguments will not be engaged with on the basis of such misinterpretation. Once again I suggest you re-read Slp1's points above as your position is untenable--Cailil 16:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cailil, again thank you for your response.

Correct me if I am wrong; but I am gathering you can't find prominent adherents of the view that Marital Rape should be decriminalized, as neither can I. This would suggest that either such people don't exist or at best are not easy to find. Either way it means that the first two principles of Jimbo Wales are not satisfied. This leads to the 3rd principle of Jimbo Wales, ie

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

I see nothing overriding this principle on wp:undue.

Much as I respect your expertise on Misplaced Pages I must defer to Jimbo Wales on this matter. As such I can't other than conclude that the entry I removed should remain just that. Again, thank for your time.CSDarrow (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not listening CSDarrow, and you're misreading/misrepresenting each comment made to you by others here. You've ignored sources, misrepresented site policy and attempted to fudge what others are saying to you. I advised you that you're digging a hole for yourself and that your position is untenable - I strongly suggest you take this to DRN, or drop it - your position is not in line with site policy at all--Cailil 20:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with CSDarrow per wp:undue. Memills (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with CSDarrow per WP:UNDUE. And I'm not one of the sockpuppets which seem to infest this article. The three options are clearly stated. 1) marjoity 2) significant minority with named advocates 3) minority without named advocates. As evidenced by CSDarrow, 1 is not the case. Without advocates being named, 2 cannot apply. 3 indicates that it should not be included in an article. I suggest that you named advocates be found so that the minority view (marital rape should not be a crime) can be attributed to them. However, stating that viewpoint without ascribing it to its advocates constitutes undue weight. 71.178.183.245 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. This was my comment, I apparently was not signed in. Perpetualization (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(Apologies for the length) Perpetualization & Memills, that's the misunderstanding of policy that both I and Slp1 have referred too. What you are requiring goes beyond sources, in other words original research. That's not our job. What we do is record what reliable sources say. You & CSDarrow are asking for the names of people (i.e MRAs) who hold these views. That's not what policy requires. Policy requires us to show that the material is reliably sourced and to the cite the sources it comes from - not the people. This is a fundamental point in this site's verifiability policy.
CSDarrow has based his disagreement about the sourcing by using the above misquotations of Jimbo Wales and by claiming that the information is accorded undue weight. The fact is this - we accord arguments weight based on the reliability of their sources - nobody above has replied to Slp1's first post listing sources or mine. The point in policy about "adherents" has to do with sources as is clarified by the policy's following statement:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. (From WP:DUE)

. Any argument about weighting must reply to the sources not evade discussion of them as CSDarrow's second & subsequent posts do. Said sources include: Current Controversies on Family Violence (pp. 90-93), 'Complexities cloud marital rape case', Straight sex: rethinking the politics of pleasure (p. 276), the 'Father's rights' section in American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia (pp. 166-168). Straight sex details that International Men's Day 1994 was celebrated in Kansas City by a campaign against "the legal recognition of 'marital rape'"; American Masculinities states that Father's rights groups questioned "the legal status of marital rape"; and Current Controversies on Family Violence states "men's advocacy groups use family conflict research to justify demands to eliminate marital rape as a crime".
These are clear and duely weighted grounds for a sentence along the lines of:

Some men's rights activists question the criminal status of marital rape.
Or
Scholars contend that men's rights activists have questioned the criminal status of marital rape.

For clarity I do think the piece on "consensual sex contract" is indeed undue and should be left out, however it should be very clear that the piece on the question of legal status of marital rape is reliably sourced, appropriately weighted, and in line with wikipedia's other attribution policies. Issues with this piece must relate their arguments to actual site policy, not interpretations of it. Again WP:NPOV's point about "adherents" relates to sources not MRAs, & discussion towards consensus about the matter must rely on the relevant sources and actual site policy - nothing else. Arguments based on other stuff will be ignored--Cailil 19:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys are forgetting an important fact here. Martial rape is still legal in most of the world. So the premise of the disputed sentence isn't even valid outside of the Western world. In India, for example, Men's Rights groups such as SIFF have successfully campaigned against efforts to make it illegal (thus they support its current legal status, not the other way around). And the argument that prominent Men's Rights activists and groups have not publicly espoused this viewpoint doesn't hold water. Here is a quote from Virag Dhulia, the Public Relations Officer of SIFF, that can be cited regarding criminalizing marital rape:

"'This means that the government wants police to enter bedrooms now, which is a sure shot way to break a marriage as no relationship will work if these rules are enforced,' said Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), an organisation of harassed husbands."

You can also find plenty of Men's Rights blog posts and discussion forums in India espousing this viewpoint less tactfully. As far as I can tell, this is the majority viewpoint among MRAs in India, not a fringe opinion. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have very little time at present but just to agree with Kaldari and Cailil that this arguments put forward here simply to not hold water. In a situation where there are multiple highly reliable academic secondary sources that make a specific point then this is all that is required per WP:V. (BTW, I have just found yet more reliable sources, through Factiva and Lexis Nexis eg. "Men's rights campaigners in other jurisdictions have claimed that this kind of legislation leads to false allegations which are impossible to disprove." Irish Times, 20 July 2002. "Tom Williamson, President of the National Coalition of Free Men: "First off, I don't think that there should be anything called marital rape laws."" CNN Interview July 31, 1992.) Undue Weight simply doesn't come into it at all. And no, you cannot trawl through websites trying to prove that the reliable sources we have are "wrong". That is simply the epitome of original research, as Cailil has said.

Having said that the whole premise of the argument is false, I will also point out that so is the original research above. There are named advocates, including one the Equal Justice Foundation that is actually named one of the reliable sources cited and the Williamson, President of the National Coalition for Men as noted above. Kaldari has pointed out several Indian websites that show that "some men's rights groups" do indeed oppose the criminalization of marital rape, and this Western website Antimisandry.com mentions it as one of "Agenda of the Next Wave of Masculism (Men's Rights)" (see No. 37).

I'm really at a loss to see what the problem is here. It is clearly true that now and in the past that some (prominent) men's rights organizations have opposed marital rape laws. We also have highly quality reliable sources supporting this assertion. There seems to be no valid reason being given here for the deletion of this material.Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Claiming a group campaigns for the decriminalization of marital rape, ie. impunity from the law for raping one's spouse, is a significant claim. Before any group is impugned with this view on Misplaced Pages, the burden of proof that this satisfies wp:Undue, wp:Reliable and wp:Verifiability should also be significant. Misplaced Pages also has a moral and legal obligation not to libel any individual or group.

Jimbo Wales is very clear as to when wp:Undue is satisfied as I have quoted above. At a bare minimum the requirement is

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

The use of mostly highly partisan sources that make unsupported claims that 'some' Mens Rights Groups support decriminalization, is by any meter inadequate. "Scholars" and "Academics" are not given automatic special privilege for their veracity, they can sometimes be wrong and sometimes opinionated; this is discussed in WP:scholarship. Opinionated scholarly work from an ideological stand point is not a bad thing, diversity of opinion is important in debate and the life blood of new ideas. However such work it is not a reliable source for the opinions of groups it is at ideological odds with; unless supported by reliable sources. At the moment I have yet to see a reliable source naming prominent adherents.

Since my last edit has been reverted, and in fact new material about India added without discussion, I conclude we have reached an impasse. I have made a request to WP:DRN for a neutral arbitrator, and if necessary formal resolution.

Thanks for your time.CSDarrow (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was necessary to take this to DRN already. I'm happy to discuss further and reach a compromise if necessary. I hadn't even had a chance to respond to your objection to my edit yet. I guess we'll have to move further discussion to DRN though. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a question that may appear silly to many here, but it is a serious question. The rape section is only dealing with men's right as the accused rapists and does not deal at all with mens's rights as a rape victim. Why is that? Is that balanced? Is that POV? Is it relevent?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss men's rights as a rape victim? If you have some, let's add the material. I did exhaustive searches of the topic in the past and have never seen anything reliable on this subject. But perhaps you know of some. As I am sure you know, we need the sources first. I'll also note that the heading was recently changed from "allegations of rape" which was a bit more specific. Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, to even get an answer to the question you first wish to see a source because your own research has not shown any concern of such? Alright. I'll take that to be the answer. There is no such reliable source that you can find. So then...what happens to your position if such sources are located?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said already, if there are reliable sources about the topic then my answer would probably be "let's add it". But I don't see the point of discussing hypothetical questions about balance and POV without any sources being produced Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

First, without even looking, we know men are raped. This may make many very uncomfortable but I am not looking for a lengthy discusion on the topic or adding information to the article. I am asking a specific question to see where this article is headed and if there may be some small amount of POV...or not. I will be looking into the article as preperation for the current DR/N, but the first thing that struck me is that this particular section is dealing only with a particular point of view of a husbands right to rape his wife. I trust your good faith to have looked into this but I still have a number of concerns. But thank you for answering the question! I do appreciate your time and want you to know it was not wasted.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do know men are raped. But this is an article about the men's rights movement, and for this article we need to summarize reliably sourced information about the men's rights movement. Do reliable sources state that the men's rights movement are interested in this topic? I didn't find any last February, but I am entirely open to the possibility of including some info about this if someone is more successful than I was. But the fact is there can only be a POV problem if there are reliable sources that are not being reflected in the article; per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". If there aren't any reliable sources, then per WP:V and WP:NPOV there isn't a POV or balance problem. Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any discussion of men as rape victims in relation to the men's rights movement, but if such material exists in reliable sources, I would certainly support including it in the article. There is, however, a good deal of discussion about men as victims of domestic violence (which is reflected in the article). Kaldari (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The dispute resolution discussion on this topic can be found here. The result was: "it is unlikely that consensus will be reached... this should be discussed through formal mediation." Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

changes to the intro and history sections

Starting in the near future and going for probably a week or so, I'm going to be making a series of changes to the introduction and history sections of this article, aiming to make it more comprehensive, well-written, and better sourced. I don't think any of them will be terribly controversial, but figured I'd drop a heads up on the talk page anyway given how controversial this article tends to be. If you see any major problems with them as I start to put them in, please feel free to bring them up here or just fix them yourselves. (I'll be focusing entirely on the intro and history sections for now. Eventually I'm going to try to tackle the issues section, but think the history/intro is a better place to start.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an in progress draft here. It needs to be updated to reflect international elements of the movement, since it was primarily written from US academic literature about the MRM, and doesn't deal with stuff like the save indian family foundation yet. Once I internationalize it, I will move it live as a replacement for the current intro and history sections of this article. (If anyone would like to edit it in my userspace to address this or other problems, please feel free to do so.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that, per my note below, you take a look at the recent (2012) book: The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benatar. In particular, Benatar makes the point that concerns about men's rights is not necessarily anti-feminist, but rather that men have a unique set of problems (e.g., 3x - 4x higher rate of suicide, male-only draft, shorter life-span, etc.) that deserve attention (Warren Farrell makes this point, too). Also, see Baumeister's recent book Is There Anything Good About Men? which covers some similar material. Both examine some of the history of the MRM.

I would also caution against presenting statements based on non-empirical POV articles as facts. For example, the statement in your proposed revision that "The main motive for joining men's rights groups seems to be feelings of resentment and pain following the end of a partnership as well as the man's changed relationship to his children" has no empirical backing -- it is based on an advocacy piece: Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia". Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 4 (2): 39-52. It might be re-written to state that "Some have argued that... the main motive."

Also, the statement "The men's rights movement is generally understood as a backlash or countermovement to feminism" -- many in the MRM have argued the contrary, that the MRM is a needed complementary movement that is not opposed to equity feminism. If you wish to keep this sentence, it would be more accurate to say "Some" or "Some feminists" view the men's rights movement as a backlash..."

The section "Relationship to other Movements" seems written from a pretty anti-MRM POV. THE MRM itself is unaffiliated with any religious or political group (although, as with any movement there are folks from a wide variety of religious and political backgrounds). Statements about the percentage of MRM actvists with particular religious or political orientations should be backed by empirical survey data. Otherwise, the statements in this section should not be presented as fact, but as someone's opinion. Most of the references in this section are articles written by feminists, published in feminist publications, are critical of the MRM, and are POV pieces rather than empirical studies. Memills (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't time to go through this in detail, but I don't agree, Memills that the Benatar book supports the statement about men's rights that you mention, since the book isn't actually about men's rights. The only MR mentions are actually quite critical of the men's rights movement. Similarly an article in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal cannot possibly be described as an "advocacy piece"; it is precisely the sort of academic secondary source that we should be using per WP:V and WP:IRS. As discussed in the section above, we do not require reliable sources to cite their empirical sources; as an encyclopedia, we find the best, highest quality sources out there, and summarize that they have to say. We don't look at bias in such sources or rule them as POV pieces; if you have high quality sources to offer about "men's rights" or the "men's rights movement" that present a different perspective that would be great, and can also be used to write the article.

For example, Memills, unless you have some other reliable sources which suggest different motivations for joining the men's rights movement or about the backlash or the relationship to other movements then "some have argued..." or "some feminists have argued" would be a weasel worded POV formulation attempting to marginalize scholarly opinion on the subject.

Sources, sources, sources!!! Slp1 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A read of the books by Benatar, Baumeister and Farrell (noted above) all argue that both men and women suffer from discrimination, but that discrimination against men is rarely understood or acknowledged today. Men, and society in general, are now about as conscious male disadvantages as women were aware in the 1950s of their own self and socially imposed limitations and choices. These books argue for equal concern for discrimination against each sex, but that concern for men's issues has been lacking.

The current article History section is highly biased toward feminist interpretations of the history of the MRM (perhaps it should be renamed as such). I will take some time later to revise this section to note and provide citations and quotes from the authors above (and others) that indicate their promotion of humanism toward both sexes. They eschew the suggestion that only a narrow minded focus on the problems/concerns of just one sex is warranted, while denying that the other sex has significant problems . Memills (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you rephrased your statement to "the current article history section is highly biased towards the current dominant school of thought as laid out in reliable sources," then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Misplaced Pages's neutrality doesn't exist in a vacuum, our conception of neutrality (see WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE) dictates that we attempt to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The current history section is biased towards the school of thought most commonly found in reliable sources; this is exactly how it should be. I wouldn't claim it's anywhere near perfect as it stands currently, and if you have some high quality secondary sources that present different viewpoints I'd encourage you to present them here for consideration or just put them in the article yourself directly. Its presentation could certainly be more nuanced, and include more minority views. However, the overwhelmingly dominant viewpoint presented in reliable sources is the same in its essentials as that currently put forth in the history section of this article - so don't expect the section to fundamentally change.

And please keep in mind that your own personal interpretation of the work of prominent men's rights activists like Benatar, Baumeister, or Farrell cannot be included in the article. We don't conduct original research; we repeat what others have already said in reliable sources. Presenting quotes from those authors that you feel demonstrates the section as currently written is incorrect would be original research by our standard. If you would like the things you mention in your post to be included in the article, you'll need to find reliable secondary sources discussing these authors (or the movement in general) that talk about the things you mentioned in your post. (If you do so then they can certainly be included, albeit only with due weight.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You mention that "The current history section is biased towards the school of thought most commonly found in reliable sources; this is exactly how it should be." So, you are suggesting that the currently dominant view of thought in the MRM is, er, defined by feminists?

On most controversial pages, like Evolution and Creationism, the history section of those articles isn't written using only cites from the contrary perspective (e.g., using creationist cites from reliable creationist sources to write the history section of the Evolution page -- what a read that would be!).

The books by Baumeister and Benatar are not primary sources, they are secondary. Both review and integrate a great deal of primary source materials. The same could be said for Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" even if one disagrees with his conclusions.

You are correct that all points of view should, within reason, be presented. I have no problem with that. The problem is that the 2nd paragraph of the History section needs to also present the perspectives of the MRM folks as well. Memills (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Please go read thoroughly our neutrality policies. I don't have time to respond to your post in full tonight, but your edit is very significantly problematic. When I have time to post a more thorough explanation, I'll do so and shall then revert your edit if no one beats me to it. (and to those lurkers here: please feel free to beat me to it.) Please, please, please read back over Misplaced Pages's content policies and make an effort to more strictly follow them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am very well familiar with WP policies, and I am long time editor.

On a controversial topic such as this, and with a paragraph in question regarding its balance and accuracy, I think the best way to proceed at this point would be to remove the paragraph from the article, bring it here to the Talk page page, and work on it collaboratively for awhile until the the paragraph is acceptable to most editors as balanced, accurate, and well referenced.

In fact, to your credit, you did this previously with this very paragraph. You referred folks to it on your personal Talk page, I suggested some edits for you (some of which you apparently thought sufficiently reasonable to incorporate). Let's see what we can do here, collaboratively. Feminists and masculinists working collaboratively might be difficult, but, worth a try (perhaps we'll transform into humanists :-). Memills (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday you restored a list of random, not notable internet sites and described several authors as men's rights activists. You did this despite the fact that multiple editors have reverted your previous edits and advised you here and elsewhere to consider WP:ORG and Misplaced Pages:EL#Links normally to be avoided. I am now the forth editor to oppose your edits. I will also point out that your edits may very well be WP:BLP violations as some of the people you pass off as MRAs have never actually identified themselves as such. I will ask the administrator in charge of enforcing the community probation to take a look at your edits.

I share Kevin's view of your most recent edit. Editors aim to write articles based on high quality sources. In this case, Kevin presented academic, highly reliable references. You deleted and rewrote sentences so that the content no longer fits the source. You also characterized all the academics as feminists, implying, without substantiation, a common ideological stand for all the academics cited. Had the sources been of questionable reliability or in contradiction to a similar number of sources of comparable quality, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV might have been a good idea. But attributing POV goes more like Sociologist Rhys H. Williams described... or Rhys H. Williams, professor of sociology at the Loyola University Chicago, wrote...

Another thing. In your last sentence you seem to self-identify as masculinist. That's your business. But please do not presume that you know anything about the editors who have worked on this article so far. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, let me suggest that the 2nd para of the History section be moved here for further discussion. In the meantime, I have reverted my own edits to this paragraph. Again, please note my main concern with this paragraph (as I expressed above).

Re the other points, there have been divergent points of view expressed by several editors, both here at the Talk page, and at a recent DRN. Memills (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of what Sonicyouth said, I agree with. To add: our conception of neutrality doesn't exist in some sort of vacuum - we don't try to treat sides with some sort of artificial equality. We present viewpoints in relative proportion to how often they are held in high quality sources. The perspective currently expressed in that paragraph is the dominant overwhelming viewpoint held in high quality sources. It's not a fringe opinion or an opinion held by a small number of people - it's a majority viewpoint, as well-demonstrated by the fifteen high quality academic sources cited in the single paragraph. It's inappropriate (per WP:UNDUE and many other policies) to try to marginalize a mainstream viewpoint by framing as something held by "some feminists" - and this is doubly inappropriate when not all of the authors you quoted self-describe or have been described in reliable sources as feminists. If there's another viewpoint held in reliable sources (that doesn't require [[WP:NOR|original research to ascertain,) then I'd absolutely love to help you include it

Please come forth with very specific passages in the paragraph you have problems with, and very specific reliable sources (including page numbers,) so that we can work to include minority viewpoints where appropriate.(It may be helpful for you to look at an article like Intelligent design or Flat Earth to get a better idea of how we handle sourcing issues in articles where the dominant school of thought among reliable sources runs counter to the ideas of the proponents. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for formating. I removed the last two sentences of the second paragraph citing WP:Impartial. I will state I am making no claim to reliable sources, or even verifiability. However I am of the opinion that the way those sentences were written, as well as being in a history section promote the viewpoint that those arguments by Mens rights groups are merely rhetoric. I believe that such content would be more appropriate to a criticisms of the MRM section than a history section. However, due to this article being on probation, I am hesitant to add such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyohyi (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I made this edit. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Book suggestion for editors for better referencing and sourcing of this article

Many of the issues in this article are addressed in the recent (2012) book: The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benatar. For editors with some extra time, I would recommend this as a good secondary source to reference claims in this article, as well as to provide, when needed, primary sources. Memills (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest considerable caution and discussion about this. Benatar does not describe himself as a men's rights advocate, and his book is not framed around a discussion about men's rights at all. In fact, as far as I can see, his only mention of "men's rights" in the whole book are some slightly disparaging comments about the movement (and what he calls "partisan feminists". This men's rights activist, and this generally supportive New Statesman article both also point out that Benatar is not a men's rights writer, and in fact that he is at pains to distance himself from the movement.

And just to also mention that in writing this article, primary sources are actually not what we want. We need secondary sources talking about the men's rights movement. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)\\)

This *is* a secondary source. Suggest you actually get a copy of Benatar's book, rather than skim a few excerpts available on Google Books. His chapters follow the general outline of this article -- how men are disadvantaged and/or suffer from gender-based discrimination. In fact, the title of the book is itself descriptive: "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys" -- of course, this is the primary focus of the men's rights moment. On page 254 he has a section titled "Taking the Second Sexism Seriously" which addresses how discrimination against men can be addressed and he provides "...a few examples of the many things that could and should be done..." (p. 258). On p. 16 he says " ...I think the second sexism (against men -- the subject of the men's right movement) ought to be opposed along with the more widely recognized sexism (against women)...." This not just a academic book; it is one that promotes activism -- men's rights activism.

Memills (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is a secondary source. My comment about primary sources related to your suggestion the book be used to provide primary sources for the article.

It's rather much to assume that I don't have copy of this book, wouldn't you say?

Your p 16 quote which suggests that Benatar has directly linked the second sexism to the men's rights movement is important evidence in this discussion. Can you confirm that on page 16 in your book it says precisely " ...I think the second sexism (against men -- the subject of the men's right movement) ought to be opposed along with the more widely recognized sexism (against women)...." because it doesn't say this in my copy. Slp1 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred, indeed. However, sometimes secondary sources can provide valuable leads to primary sources when one is trying to track down more specific information, or statistics, about a particular topic.

You linked to Google Books in your comment, rather than referencing a page number from the book itself, so my assumption was that you were using Google Books rather than the book itself.

I can confirm the quote on page 16 (sans the material in parens, which are my clarifications of his definitions of these terms for those who have not read his book). Memills (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a book I've been intending to read for a while, because I find his material interesting. Within the next three or weeks, I'll have a copy of his book, read through it so I can gauge where it could be important in the article, and also be able to confirm or deny direct quotes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Memills, for future reference, it is better, clearer (and indeed more traditional) to place any additions one makes to a text in square brackets, so as to indicate that these are not the author's actual words. Now that you have clarified what you added, the text concurs with my edition of the book. It is now clear that it is actually you (not Benatar) who is equating his "second sexism" with the men's rights and the men's rights movement. As I said before, Benatar does not frame his book in the context of men's rights, and indeed at various points is at pains to disassociate himself from the movement.(see pages 14 and 258 for examples ) More importantly, this is not my view, but the view of reliable sources written about the books and men's rights activists themselves.. There is overlap, to be sure, between his views and those of men's rights activists, but then there is similarly some overlap with the views of the Promise keepers, the Mythopoetic movement, but it would not be appropriate to cite their literature in this article. In this case, there are also BLP issues involved here. We cannot label Benatar a men's rights activist-or his book representative of the movement-without self-identification from him.

To answer your other comment, yes, sometimes secondary sources can provide leads to primary sources as you say, but this is an article about the men's rights claimed by the men's rights movement. This article is not the place to engage in back and forth providing evidence for and against these claims. There are other articles (e.g Domestic violence, paternity fraud etc for that. So unless those sources actually refer to men's rights and/or the men's rights movement, then in will be original research to include them.Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Organizations related to the men's rights movement

Kaldari. The Mens Rights Movement is a Grassroots movement with no central leadership and it existence on the web is an important part of its expression as a community. There is no requirement on Misplaced Pages that listed organizations should be registered. The links you removed are informative for the reader and very pertinent to the page topic.

I would also ask that since this article is under probation that in general before material is added or removed we discuss the issue. As such I have reverted your edit until consensus can be reached.CSDarrow (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTCOMPANY, groups without Misplaced Pages articles must establish their notability through a cited independent reliable source or they cannot be in the list. Citing the group's own web presence is not going to do it. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to refer to 'List of...' articles. Which this isn't. Arkon (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Binkersnet your reason is inadequate. I agree with Akron, WP:LISTCOMPANY does not apply here. I have reverted your edit.CSDarrow (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We take the WP:LISTCOMPANY guideline as the basis for embedded lists within articles, because there is no guideline for that. Any list entry should be supported not by its own self-published web presence but by independent third party reliable sources such as books. The notability of any men's rights group should be high; this is an encyclopedia, a summary of the topic's main points. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Binkersnet, I am assuming that since you are reverting edits without discussion, despite my suggestion otherwise, and have not addressed the points I raised that an impasse has been reached.CSDarrow (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are responding to a discussion entry of mine which immediately followed my second removal of your work. You can see above that my discussion post which immediately followed my first removal of your work. Of course I am discussing, not as you say "reverting edits without discussion".

We are at an impasse if you wish to promote men's rights groups by listing their URLs here in this article. Take such promotion to their own articles. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The proper organizations to list probably falls somewhere in between the original version and the current version. Clearly, the original version included several non-notable websites and groups (imagine if every website about feminism were listed in the feminism article). That said, I'm willing to include any organization that is a registered non-profit or other type of corporation and any organization that has its own Misplaced Pages article. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the nascent state of the MRM, most any MRM general informational website or organization seems notable to me. (This is not true of the feminist movement, which is a far more mature movement, and for which there are thousands, not tens, of relevant informational websites). Non-profit or profit organizational status seems irrelevant me, as does whether it has its own WP page. We are talking about a list of less than 10 websites/organizations. I recommend that several of these organizations/websites that have been deleted be restored. Memills (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

When Kaldari refers to groups having their own WP page I understand him to referring to wikipedia's standard for organizations'/groups' notability (see WP:ORG) rather than the usual meaning of the term 'notable'. Basically unless a group has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" it is not considered to be notable in wikipedia's terms. And we don't list groups or websites in order to advertise them - only if they're notable--Cailil 22:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:ORG guideline ought to be applied to any group hoping to be listed here. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORG refers to whether there should be a WP article about an organization, not whether it should be listed as an external resource in an article. As noted at WP:ORG, the purpose of the WP:ORG page is "...to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise).. is a valid subject for a separate Misplaced Pages article..."

The purpose of a list of related organizations/websites within an article is not "to advertise" them. It is to provide interested WP readers with resources for additional information.

Again, given the nascent state of the MRM, a list of less than 10 MRM organizations and/or MRM informational websites to see for further information does not seem excessive. Memills (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to help the reader connect with a men's rights group. Instead, WP is here to summarize the movement's history and current status. The main points are laid out; minor points are passed over. A list of men's rights groups should only include the ones that have been given wider notice. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, I hate dealing with lists,) WP:NLIST is the governing policy for this sort of thing. It suggests that list items should only be included if they are prominent to be included in the article even without the list existing, and that each list entry requires a reliable source to confirm its inclusion. I suspect this would provide a good route forward. I'll soon delete entries that I think unavoidably fail these requirements, but please feel free to replace them if you include a reliable source that speaks both to their existence and importance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit has conflated a list of MRM organizations to see for Further Information with a list of Notable Authors / Activists in the MRM. These lists should be separated. Memills (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? I'm not necessarily opposed to separating the two lists, but don't see any great benefit to it. The external links were inappropriate and violated WP:EL, though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:EL states that " ...acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content." The links to MRM organizations that were deleted, imho, met these criteria. If one wanted to add a list of notable authors /activists, that could be added under its own heading. Memills (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:ELNO. Specifically, #1, #11, #19, and #20. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For each of your link deletions, please let us know which of ] item(s) (above) you believe applies. I am not seeing it. Memills (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain each of my deletions for the sake of time for now since they're obvious and the other posters here agree with me, but will be glad to do one as an example. If absolutely necessary, we can go through them one at a time.

One of the links I deleted was to news.mensactivism.org. It adds no value to the article beyond what the article would contain if it were a featured article - #1. It is essentially a group blog or fansite (it has no professional staff or rigorous editorial oversight,) and violates #11. It is part of an embedded list that is primarily a collection of external links - it violates #20. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

contradictions

The history and overview sections of the article states that mens rights began in the 1970s. however, the divorce section of the article states that mens rights groups were already active in the 1960s. I don't have access to the source referenced, can any other editors provide some clarification? this seems like a fairly clear contradiction. Perpetualization (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source that apparently says 1960, but all of the sources that I do have access to put the date at some point in the 70's. It wouldn't surprise me if the source used in the divorce section talking about the 1960's does indeed say 1960's - pinning down the start date for a movement is slippery. Eventually, I'll try to get my hands on the sources used in the divorce section (as well as others) and rework the section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking further I do have a couple books that date the movement to the 1960's, although the overwheming majority say the 70's. If no one beats me to it, I'll eventually rewrite the statement to reflect the disputed start date. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

DR/N

		The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
		It appears that this dispute has stalled and little movement or progress has been made. I recommend closing the DR/N filing as "failed" and recommend mediation as the next logical course of action. Thoughts? Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK...I will take that as a yes. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have doubts that formal mediation would be a useful step in this dispute, since mediation has no binding ability and I find that the chasms between the two sides of this debate are significant enough that meeting in the middle would unlikely. I would instead suggest an in-depth discussion of the sources in question through WP:RSN and such outlets. Barring that I would suggest a formal RfC to bring in an even broader segment of the community, or, alternately uninvolved administrators enforcing the probation on this page more aggressively. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mediation is not an appropriate step at this point. The issues are fundamentally policy-based ones about what constitutes a reliable source etc. If editors really do still question the reliability of the academic sources in question, then that should be clarified at WP:RSN, as Kevin (and indeed CSDarrow) has suggested. --Slp1 (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud -- paragraph deleted without rationale

Recently a paragraph with referenced material was deleted from this section with insufficient rationale. Suggest restoring this paragraph unless there is good reason not to do so.

First para was changed, 2nd para was deleted:

Paternity fraud occurs when a parent (or parents) intentionally identifies as the biological father a man whom she knows is not the father.

According to estimates in the United States there might be as many as 800,000 incorrect paternity judgements in California alone (because of defaults). Once so judged, it is extremely difficult or even impossible to get liability for child support removed. In some cases, a husband is legally responsible for his wife's children even if the child is not his own.

Memills (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My mind is elsewhere and I havent looked over the sourcing completley, but the first thing that comes to mind if the fact that none of your sources in at least the first couple sections talk explicitly about the men's rights movement. If you'd like to restore it, I'd suggest rewriting it in a way that draws much more heavily on reliable secondary sources of the movement, and make sure that all material in any whole section is directly cited to something about the men's rights movement. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the problem with these sources is that none only the last has any reference to, or connection with Men's Rights Movement. As a result, we are dealing with yet more original research on the topic. The last reference, an opinion column by Glenn Sacks, is not an appropriate source for facts, though could be used for his attributed opinion.

I have a bit of unexpected free time today, so will try on a replacement about this issue and its connection to the men's rights movement. --Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

My rationale was contained in my edit summary actually. The text appended to Henry, the reference in question, didn't accurately summarize it and the source itself is questionable. Henry notes that there are no official numbers, that the numbers are basically a guess, that they're basically his guess, that he's extrapolating from some pretty shaky sources, and even that 800,000 number is for a span of 18 years (not a one-time or one-year estimate) based on a single agency from a single state, for the United States only. We are not US-centric. Plus, it looks like the article itself was a presentation at a symposium, making it even further a questionable source. I couldn't find where in the article it said it was hard to get liability removed (there were several individual examples but no general research on the subject I saw - if my assessment is in error, please clarify with a quote or page number and the information can be replaced). Finally, the last point in the paragraph is sourced to a Los Angeles newspaper in an opinion column as noted by Slp1, and is again about a specific state within a single country.

Ironically, by posting journal articles on their websites, men's rights organizations make it easier to check the sources themselves and thus demonstrate that on wikipedia the points are misrepresented, exaggerated or outright wrong. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have had a start at reworking and expanding this paragraph. One issue that has come up is that the very term "paternity fraud" is pretty POV and is often placed in quotations in reliable sources and/or attributed to men's/fathers' rights activists. Other terms used are "misattributed paternity" and "discrepant paternity", "non-paternity event" If anybody has any ideas about how to deal with this, it would be good to know.

On a related note, we have two articles on Misplaced Pages about basically the same issue: Paternity fraud and Misattributed paternity. I've wondered in the past if one wasn't a POV fork of the others The paternity fraud article has recently been totally reworked by a new editor; I tried to help guide him/her earlier with info about Original Research etc, but just didn't have the time or energy to continue. Maybe I'll have another try now, but if anybody else wants to weigh in there, it would be good. --Slp1 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've since found that there is yet another article on more or less the same topic Non-paternity event. I think some merging needs to be done. Slp1 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From a MRM perspective, I believe the term "paternity fraud" refers particularly to cases in which cuckoldry has occurred with couples who have pledged their sexual fidelity (as in most marriages). Also, especially to cases where the woman suspects or knows that the man she has identified as the child's father is actually not (e.g., as in a typical Maury Povich "Who's Your Daddy?" show). Presumably the most extreme cases from a MRM perspective would be when a woman intentionally falsely attributes paternity as a means to get child support. Memills (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment, Memills, it would be great if you could back up these sort of posts with citations. Your opinions are interesting but cannot really be a foundation for writing an encyclopedia. For what it is worth, this peer reviewed article has has a somewhat different summary of what the MRM terms "paternity fraud".Slp1 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article you cite is from a journal called "The Women's Studies International Forum." Not exactly a MRM journal, not written by a MRM activist. Did you also search for cites re for references in MRM sources, so that readers of this article can better understand how the MRM itself generally defines paternity fraud? That too would have been a helpful contribution. Memills (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The scholarly article cited by Slp1 is perfectly suitable, no need to replace it. If there is an MRM source which is reliable it can be used in addition. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the fundamental misunderstanding that I talked about above. We use high quality reliable secondary sources to write this encyclopedia: we do not privilege articles written by MRM activists or published in MRM journals or seek to have the MRM movement define itself.

Misplaced Pages has dealt with the same issues on Cold fusion, Homeopathy, HIV, Catholic Church, Creation science etc. Supporters of particular views arrive and want the article be written using "their" sources, not those they consider "biased" against them. But that's just not the way this encyclopedia is written. See WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:IRS.

I looked for high quality sources, full stop; the one I listed is a peer reviewed one that I found in a very general search. Do you have any other similar quality articles on the subject of the MRM to suggest? Slp1 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources are used based on their reliability, not whether they are acceptable to specific editors or conciliatory towards the point of view found in the page. And even from a logical perspective were we to write a more partisan encyclopedia - for criticisms of the MRM, journals focusing on women's studies and related disciplines would be obvious sources. However, given wikipedia's approach to neutrality (explore both sides as found in reliable sources), using sources from multiple perspectives is not just encouraged, it's necessary. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Draper, H. (2007). "Paternity fraud and compensation for misattributed paternity". Journal of Medical Ethics. 33 (8): 475–480. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013268. PMC 2598159. PMID 17664309. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
2. Henry, Ronald K. (2006). "The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud". Family Law Quarterly. 40 (1).
3. Holstein, Ned; Sacks, Glenn (1 June 2011). "Bill would give 'duped dads' some fairness under the law". Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 29 October 2011. Currently the only person who can be held legally responsible to support the child is the mother's then-husband, who is presumed to be the father because the child was born into the marriage. Judges routinely (and at times apologetically) saddle such "duped dads" with stiff child support orders.

Original research

I am presently going to remove two paragraphs of the health section as being original research. One paragraph was added a while ago, and one in the last few hours. None of the references make any mention to men's rights or the men's rights movement. This material would be fine in an article about gender aspects of health, men's health or something similar, but including the material here is synthesis, by linking the points to men's rights issues which none of the original authors did. This is not the article to discuss the topic of men's health itself, but about what the men's rights movement says about this issue, and any response that they receive to their points. As I've noted above, Benatar does not identify as a men's rights activist, and in fact critiques the movement. Please don't restore this material without getting consensus for it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that I had a chance to read the material before you removed it. I suggest cut and pasteing the paragraphs here to make the predictable Perfect Storm reaction easier to leap into. Or avoid. Carptrash (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why cutting and pasting would be necessary since it is in the history, but for the record here is the link to the deletion as well as the the article with the material included. Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. C&Ping is my way of dealing with removing material from articles and keeping it and the subsequent discussion (if any) together. it's a style thing and was all get to edit in our own styles. Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Many of the cites in this Health subsection are to authors who are not men's rights activists or MRM authors. In fact, many are feminist authors who are neither MRM activists or authors. Shall they be deleted, too? Further, the argument that Benatar's book,titled "The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys" cannot be cited in this article because it (or he) has no relation to the MRM seems to me a stretch.

Here are the paragraphs that Slp1 deleted:

The World Health Organisation also state that the main reason for the gender health gap is mainly due to different behaviours regarding the use of tobacco and alcohol. The opinion of doctors such as Thomas Perls, Myles Spar, and organizations such as the European Commission are that part of men's shorter lifespans than women can be attributed to genetic and biological reasons, while social factors including a lower tendency to seek medical help and routine checkups are indicated as well. It is proposed that over 50% of premature deaths of men could be avoided.

In addition to social factors, biologists note that males of many species, including humans, generally senescence (age) faster than do females. This is due to the effects sexual selection for biological and behavioral traits that generally bias males toward greater allocation of investment in reproductive effort over somatic repair. This suggests that even if the sexes were treated identically, males would generally have shorter lifespans. Given this, Benatar (2012) argues that health and medical interventions should be initiated to help to reduce this lifespan inequality. Memills (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We are perfectly able to use non-MRM sources to write about the MRM. The more scholarly the sources the better. I see no problem at all with using female authors or feminist scholarly journals. On the other hand, in-universe MRM sources are more likely to be unreliable or slanted. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Feminists are unbiased; while MRM authors and activists are biased because they are "unreliable or slanted."

"Judge, in closing, I have nothing further to add. I rest my case." Memills (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Benatar's point seems about the only thing worth keeping, the rest is a coatrack of original research.

MRM authors and activists and in particular pro-MRM editors on wikipedia would be well-served in learning the rules of wikipedia, such as avoiding original research, what "neutral" means on wikipedia and that insistence is a poor substitute for a properly summarized reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No doubt the feeling is mutual by some MRM toward some feminist activists and authors.

However, let's try to tone down the rhetoric. From my perspective, if we define feminists are those who are interested in identifying and rectifying unique women's problems and issues, and if we define "masculinists" (MRM folks) as those who are interested in identifying and rectifying unique men's problems and issues, both groups need not necessarily be conflict. One can be both a feminist and a masculinist -- which might make one a "humanist."

This article is about problems and issues unique to men, and the movement to address them. The article title is not "Feminist critiques of the MRM" -- although those can certainly be included, and perhaps an article could be created devoted to that topic.

The reader primarily comes here to learn about men's issues from the perspective of the MRM itself, not just the feminist critiques of it. Memills (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If "the reader primarily comes here to learn about men's issues from the perspective of the MRM itself" then they are in the wrong place. They might want to try Conservapedia or even Wikimannia, the wiki dedicated to "independent, uncensored ideas and facts about men's rights". As I've said before, this is where we will write a neutral article about the men's rights movement, by sourcing it to the highest quality secondary sources available. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Just as we write neutral articles about Homeopathy, Catholic Church, Creation Science balancing it based on the highest quality sources available, not by privileging pro homeopathy, Catholic, or creationist perspectives. And no, a critique of MRM article is not an option as it would be a obvious point of view fork. Slp1 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My point is that it is not a neutral article if sources from MRM authors / activists are preemptively deemed "unreliable and biased" and thus are excluded from the article. Memills (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a masculinist or feminist wrote a source. What matters is the quality of the source. For instance, articles published in academic, peer-reviewed journals are usually preferable to news stories. Sources written by MRAs are perfectly acceptable as long as they are reliable. Please notice that I am just repeating what multiple editors have said. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What Sonicyouth86 said.

My point is that it also matters that the article is neutral and balanced. The suggestion by a couple of editors (above) to exclude cites from MRM authors, such as Benatar, (because they are "biased" or because they are "frothing, irrational, unpleasant and misogynistic douchebags") is inconsistent with the goal of neutrality. Memills (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must have missed some comments because I cannot remember reading the argument that Benatar should be excluded on the grounds that he is an "MRA" author. What I do remember is that at least one editor reminded you that neither Benatar himself not reliable sources have described him as an MRA and that you should stop referring to him as an MRA because WP:BLP applies to talk pages. I also remember Slp1 explaining in detail that we should not use Benatar as a source because he doesn't write about the MRM. Only a handful of sentences (I believe two) of almost 300 pages are devoted to the MRM, that's the extent of what he has to say on the subject. Please do not refuse to get the point. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:NPOV, possibly a couple times. "Neutral" on wikipedia doesn't mean "from the perspective of the article's subject. Neutral means "discussed in the detail and perspective to those found in mainstream sources". The MRM is generally a fairly fringe topic (not wikipedia fringe, mind) so there's no dedicated, widely respected journals, academic departments, degree-granting programs or similar infrastructures. One of the main thinkers has to self-publish as well (via XLibris), and it's pretty unusual that it's seen as an acceptable source for use on the page. That being said, the number and quality of debate seems to be growing, which is good. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU. I want to reiterate that NPOV does not mean "use unreliable sources to supply a missing point of view". No. We use reliable sources, period. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is important to note that neutral in WP terms means fairly representing the balance of opinion in reliable sources. If the bulk of the highest quality sources come out having a particular perspective, that's the one WP will privilege.

Memills. You must stop calling Benatar, a men's rights author. Frankly, this is becoming disruptive and even BLP issue. I have multiple times provided evidence from Benatar himself and from reliable sources who write about him and his book that he distances himself from the movement. But you seem just to ignore this. Unless you can produce some reliable sources in which he self-identifies as one (preferably) or other reliable sources that state that he is, then this absolutely needs to stop.--Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

While I am an unapologetic feminist (I am, for example. proud that my daughter teaches women's studies), I fail to see where Memills' expressing his views about a certain author's perspective on the subject, on the talk page, is disruptive behavior. if you don't agree with him, ignore him. Or her, should that be the unlikely case. Or did I miss that this was happening in the article proper? Carptrash (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Memills makes statement like "MRM authors, such as Benatar", despite all the evidence to date showing that Benatar is not MRM author. As Sonicyouth86 points out above, BLP applies to talkpages. But you are right it probably wouldn't really matter that much except that Memills would like to use Benatar as a source -as a MRM author- (and in fact did so yesterday in his edit to the article) despite the fact that Benatar says virtually nothing about men's rights or the men's rights movement in his book, and in what he does say clearly distances himself from the movement, as judged by reviewers in the New Statesman and the Times Educational Supplement, The Daily Maverick and even by a men's rights activist . Susan Pinker makes some points similar to men's rights activists in her Sexual Paradox book. Does that make her a men's rights author if Memills or you or I decide she is? Should we cite her book as an example of the views of men's rights activists? No, of course not. What is disruptive about this is that Memills just keeps repeating the same inaccurate meme, forcing me go over the same counterevidence again and again and never addresses the points or provides evidence to counter them.Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have discovered over the decades that some people have learned that if they keep push, push, pushing for long enough they eventually wear down the opposition, regardless of the merits of the issue, and "win," and I will say that you are hanging in there nicely. I decided sometime ago that I was NOT going to go the distance here and am glad that you are. Sorry if I have not been too supportive so far. Carptrash (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

...er, how many here actually have Benatar's book, and have read it? And, how many don't like it already and don't really even want to read it?

First, rather than what rely on a reviewer's characterization of Benatar, let's look at what Benatar himself says.

In response to what he apparently thought was an inaccurate review of his book, Benatar states that, contrary to the reviewer's characterization: "I specifically noted that I do not deny that women are the victims of sexism. My argument is that men also are. Nor did I claim, as she suggests, that the problem is fundamentally attributable to feminism. I argued that most forms of discrimination against men long predate feminism and thus cannot be caused by it."

The index of his book has an entry for "men's rights." Nowhere on those listed pages does he distance himself from those who which to promote them. (If he said to an interviewer that some MRM activists are a tad wacko, heck, I would agree with him. There are extreme outliers in most all political movements.)

I previously noted what Benatar actually does say in his book (above), and, apparently, it bears restating:

...the title of (Benatar's) book is itself descriptive: The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys -- of course, this is the primary focus of the men's rights moment. On page 254 he has a section titled "Taking the Second Sexism Seriously" which addresses how discrimination against men can be addressed and he provides "...a few examples of the many things that could and should be done..." (p. 258, italics are mine). On p. 16 he says " ...I think the second sexism ought to be opposed along with the more widely recognized sexism ...." (Clarifications between brackets are mine -- to identify what he is referring to for those who have not read his book.)

On page 14 he states: "Promoting equality of the sexes does often coincide with the promotion of women's interests. ...However, because men, as I shall argue, are sometimes the victims of unfair discrimination, the promotion of gender equality will sometimes require the advancement of men's rather than women's interests."

Again, this not just a academic book about men's rights (which alone would be sufficient to make it relevant to this article), it is also one that promotes men's rights activism (per his quotes above).

To suggest that this book cannot be cited in this article because it is unrelated to the MRM is, to my mind, a bizarre contortion of rationality. In fact, to me it smacks of wikilawyering gymnastics to suppress inclusion a relevant, notable, reliable source. Why? Apparently because certain editors do not like the book (Misplaced Pages:I_just_don't_like_it) -- perhaps even before having read it.

Unfortunately, perhaps resolving this important issue will require the input from uninvolved folks in a informal or formal dispute resolution. Memills (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that I have the strength to re-read this entire discussion, but it seems to me that if you quote Benatar, which it appears to me you can do, in the article, just don't refer to him as an "MRM author." I have not read him not am I likely to do so, but the quotes you provide can likely be used in a positive manner in the article. Find a good quote and an appropriate place in the article and insert it. My sugestion is don't do 5 at a time, start with one and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea ...only one problem. Every time I have cited Benatar (and without stating he is a MRM activist), the contribution has been deleted -- via the gambit that he can't be cited because he is not a MRM activist (see above for some examples).

Role reversal exercise: Imagine a WP article about the Feminist Movement wherein editors are prohibited from citing a feminist book on women's rights (say, a book by Pat Benatar, titled The First Sexism: Discrimination Against Women and Girls) because the author was not a women's rights "activist" and the book was not about the feminist movement. Concurrently, imagine articles by masculinists with clear hostility to feminism were allowed to be cited and some of which (mis)characterize the feminist movement's history and goals (but were from notable, reliable masculinist sources, of course).

Ah... Doubt it. Memills (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. From my perspective you are now using the "How-tough-it-is-be-a-male. So-much-easier-if-I-were-not" argument, which to me is one of the most unappealing aspects of the MRM. I am sorry that I missed the last time your Benatar info was slashed and burned, but humor me, try one sample, one example again and if the objections to including it are what you say then I (for what it is worth - not much) will argue for its inclusion. Especially after I research him a bit. Carptrash (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Let's have it a go. Slp1 deleted two paragraphs (noted at the start of this subsection, and they are also copied there). Both paras I believe are relevant to men's rights issues (shorter male life expectancy / faster male senescence); the second paragraph included a cite to Benatar.

I'll add these deleted paras back in. Given the proximity to Halloween, I fear some ghoulish zombie attacks... but, you promised to defend me, right?  :-)

(PS -- In many respects, I too think it is often tougher to be a female, especially in certain parts of the world. But, the MRM notes that there are also gender specific problems experienced by men (e.g., shorter lifespans, high suicide rates, male only draft, etc.) that also deserve attention. (I hope noting these doesn't make me a whiner. Maybe I should just "man up'?) Memills (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My record against zombie attacks is not that great, I would have been eaten in the first half hour on Night of the Living Dead, but the die is cast, the Rubicon has been crossed, the ships on the beach burned and more. Depending on how you define "tougher" I'd say that women have it "tougher" pretty much everywhere. I also fail to understand why the men's issues that you mention here are due to a lack of rights for men, but perhaps after I read Benatar I will understand. In any case this is not the place for us to chat about that. This is where we try to make a better article. Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

the Return of the Zombies. So I am looking at the paragraph that starts with the "World Health Organization" and am wondering exactly what the Men's Rights issue is here. it seems to me that it says that if men went to the doctor like their nagging wives are always telling then to do that they would live longer. Okay, they have the right not to do this, so . . . ...? So what am I missing? Carptrash (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write that para -- but I can see the relevance. Some gender-specific problems are self-imposed (and/or, culturally promoted). If women drank, smoked, and failed to get recommended medical tests, such as mammograms, we might see that as a "women's problem" and wish to change women's behaviors to avoid the negative outcomes. Too many men when they have physical problems believe they should just "man up" and deal with pain, rather than see a doctor. By the time it gets bad enough and they do see a doctor, the problem has often worsened. Women need to be given self/cultural "permission" to do traditionally non-feminine things; men need to be given self/cultural "permission" to feel that it is ok to accept help to reduce self-destructive behaviors -- say, to reduce smoking, drinking, and going to the doctor at the first signs of a problem.

Govt. funding for breast cancer is many times higher than that for prostrate cancer, although the latter kills about as many people. If we wish to "equalize" health/longevity between the sexes, then certain interventions should be directed at women's problems (e.g., advertisements to encourage them to get mammograms); others should be primarily directed at men's problems (dude, it really is ok to see a doctor).

Heck, I should have given myself permission to see a back doctor earlier -- now I'm paying the painful price. No chance now that I will be able to outrun the zombies.Memills (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you wrote that paragraph, you did just add it. Right? And you aren't really using blogs as sources as the zombie below suggests, are you? When I think of things such as spending on cancer and that women are getting more than men I get this image of what women get and what men get and it is a thousand bar graphs and the men are ahead in 973 of them but insist on focusing everything on the 27 (did I get the math right?) times where the women get more. Sorry to hear about your back, with me it is knees. Carptrash (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Smoking linked to earlier male deaths BBC News. 18 January 2011 Retrieved February 7, 2012.
2. Laura Blue (August 6, 2008). "Why Do Women Live Longer Than Men?". Time.
3. Myles Spar, M.D. (February 11, 2010). "Why Do Men Die Younger Than Women?". Huffington Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. ^ "High level of premature illness and death amongst men is preventable, concludes report". August 25, 2011. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
5. Martin Daly, Margo Wilson (1983). Sex, Evolution and Behavior, 2nd Ed. Brooks Cole.
6. T.H Clutton-Brock, and K Isvaran. (2007). Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 December 22; 274(1629): 3097–3104. Published online 2007 October 17. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1138 PMCID: PMC2293943
7. David Benatar (2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. Blackwell Public Philosophy. p. 190

Memills sanctioned

As his problems are largely related to not understanding or applying WP:V; WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; please try to assist him to understand these better during this time. Memills, please use this time to learn from your fellow editors. In specific, you cannot continue using blogs from people not even in the correct field for a source, you must ensure your content reflects what is found in sources, and you must apply yourself to understand and embrace the concept of NPOV, which is not the same as SPOV (sympathetic point of view.) KillerChihuahua 17:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted on my Talk page, I will be appealing this. There has been significant disagreement among editors on this Talk page re the application of the WP policies noted above, which is pretty typical on the Talk pages for articles on controversial/contentious topics. Memills (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see two sides, but I think you, Memills, are the only person on one of them. Can you provide a diff of someone agreeing with your perspective? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for reverting your disparaging comments about MRM activists from your comments above.

There are definitely two sides, which again, is why WP policies are so debated throughout these Talk pages (current and archived), but the Talk pages on non-controversial topics are often empty and sans disagreements about WP policies. Re Benatar, note the comment above from Carptrash that "if you quote Benatar, which it appears to me you can do, in the article..." and "I fail to see where Memills' expressing his views about a certain author's perspective on the subject, on the talk page, is disruptive behavior." (Thanks -- and, if it wasn't obvious, I was just kidding about the zombies.)

Also note the general disagreements about interpretation of WP policies as they are applied to this article at this recent Dispute Resolution.

In my experience, one downside of WP is that sometimes the system can be gamed, especially via wikilawyering and tag-teaming. The result sometimes is a non-neutral, less than accurate article, but one which one side of the debate (usually the side with more editors watching the page) will claim is entirely neutral. That may be one reason why many teachers and professors allow their students to cite encyclopedias in their term papers, but disallow them to cite WP. Memills (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So no diffs from the current discussion then? There's really not much of a debate, you appear to be fundamentally not understanding our core content policies, yet still pushing your edits. That appears to be the problem. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, your very selective quotation of Carptrash is essentially quote mining, since in the first case Carptrash's real point is that you shouldn't quote Benatar's words as if s/he were a member of the men's rights movement (contrary to your point) and in the second case, s/he is saying your points on the talk page can be ignored. These are not ringing endorsements of your ideas or edits, and portraying them as such is essentially lying. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I am not concerned, nor do I think anyone else is concerned, about the zombie jokes. A little light humor is not an issue. Only if it were to overshadow the discussions about how to improve the article, or if the "humor" were insulting or hurtful, would there be an issue. KillerChihuahua 00:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fast Cleanup - Hopefully!

I'm trying to go through all the sources to check the article and will be making a lot of edits over the next two days (hopefully). This article is absolutely stuffed with WP:OR and vague statements only somewhat conveying the actual meaning of the words of the source (when they do not directly contradict the source). I'm sure somebody will fight with me on something (and I'm not a particularly seasoned wikipedian) so please let me know what I've done wrong here. Perpetualization (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Source 85 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158869,00.html) is crappy. It's used to support the claim that anonymity of rape accusations leads to false accusations (in the rape section). But... It's a fox news article with one sentence that references the MRM. The longer article is about privacy rights and about three paragraphs concern rape. From WP:NEWSORG, "Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi Perp; thanks for the heads up, it is appreciated. I agree with you that the article has an obscene number of OR (and other) problems. Please let me know if I can help you in some way such as providing direct quotes from sources where necessary or something. (I have physical access to many of the sources of the article.) I've looked over the changes you've made so far, and I agree with most of them, but have a couple concerns.

1. In the section on rape accusations, I believe it is important to include a statement that MRA's have campaigned specifically to increase the level of evidence required in rape and domestic violence cases. It's well supported by a number of sources (I can provide more if needed,) and is talked about enough that I believe it is significant enough to include.
2. In the social security section, I think that the 'since the 1970's' part should probably be included. It's well sourced, and provides an interesting nugget of historical background. (I don't care about the "superior for women" vs "inferior for men" language very much. I think we should probably use whatever version of it Clatterbaugh uses, but haven't looked it up myself lately.)
3. In the section about social security, I think we should probably include a citation for the statement "The men's rights movement generally holds that males are no longer privileged to the exclusion of women." I generally think the statement is fine, and holds true with most of the readings I've done - it just seems significant enough that it would benefit from a citation. I'll try to add one myself the next time I'm at home if you don't beat me to it (I don't think it will be hard, though it may be 36-48 hours before I do so.)
4. In the rape section (you made this editing while I was composing this post,) I think it's probably both more clear and more accurate to mention that the general concern over the anonymity of rape accusations generally equates to a concern over the anonymity of people accused of rape vs those accused of being rapists. I don't know what wording the source currently used supports offhand (I haven't modified that section myself,) but I'm pretty sure that wording such as this would be supported by the reliable sources available.

Most of your changes (like the removing the stuff about widows in Australia) look good to me (in fact, I thought I had already removed the australia stuff.) Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Also, as a note, this was a severe edit conflict that I didn't notice at first. I haven't read or considered your latest comment yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC))

thanks kevin.

1. I agree, but I don't want to be devoid of context. MRA's have campaigned to increase the level of evidence........... because they feel false accusations are inherently easier for rape and blah blah blah.

1. "have campaigned specifically to increase the level of evidence" isn't shown in the current sources. The "lee" source is about father's rights, not men's right, and only tangentially mentioned raped (as per my removal). The sex-contract article doesn't mention changing the level of evidence, and Kimmel says only that Farrell proposed "reforms" but doesn't specifically speak to the level of evidence. Without a source, we can't include that statement. Also, the Kimmel source is generally weak, being about "anti-feminism" rather than the MRM.
2. I assume you mean the female privilege section? I was sourcing from Clatterbaugh for both sentences in that section. he says "having denied that men are privileged relative to women..." at the bottom of page 11.
3. I agree, but the only source (the one we edit conflicted on) is crappy (foxnews and tangentially related) and only says that the possibility of abuse exists.

Perpetualization (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many of your edits are helpful, Perpetualization, but I think you may be going a little bit too quickly, partly for accuracy and partly to allow discussion etc. For example, in this edit you say that there is no mention of "epidemic" in the sources, when in fact it is . However, I think your removal of the term seems appropriate, as it is cited to one guy/group and, contrary to what I was expecting, doesn't seem to be repeated that much elsewhere.

I agree that Fox isn't the greatest source but Wendy McElroy has the advantage of being generally considered a men's rights supporter, so I am loath to rule her out. I think there are other sources for this though.

Kimmel is citing Farrell, an established men's rights activist: the fact it is cited in an anti-feminism article is neither here not there.

Female privilege. I don't know why this is a separate section at the bottom as an "issue". The content seems to fit much better in the introduction, with all the other, more philosophical stuff. I suggest we move it up.

I'm going to make a few edits to restore some stuff that Kevin has also mentioned, with additional citations were necessary. --Slp1 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, your edits were disruptive to the article IMO. The language I had typed was tighter and noted the difference between US/UK mens rights organizations and Indian organizations. The political and social climates are very different. In the US/UK, mens rights groups acknowledge the independence of women and are concerned with false accusations. In India, SIFF opposed a law making domestic abuse illegal. These are night and day. To conflate the two is deliberately misleading. In the future, rather than identifying small errors as a reason to restore previous (and poor) language, will you consider simply correcting the small error? All it would have taken was a slight modification to note that the two cites referred to different laws. I will do so now.

On happier issues, the female privilege section is weird. Female privilege also redirects to it which makes very little sense (and I've asked for it to be deleted). An article in place of the redirect would make a lot of sense but sources are difficult.

Apologies for the epidemic mistake, I must have missed it. I was more concerned with looking through the academic source than the news article. Still, in an era of ctrl+f, I have to feel sorta silly.

You missed my point about the anti-feminism article. Anti-feminism includes a range of ideologies including the MRM. But, also including a lot of things that aren't the MRM. Thus, within the article on anti-feminism, we can only look at what is said about the MRM. The only thing said about the MRM is that Farrell has proposed reforms . The point I was making to Kevin is that "reforms" does not necessarily equate with "lowering the standard of evidence." For example, requiring all of the victims conversations with police to be recorded and admitable in court. As such, that Kimmell article cannot be used to source "lowering the standard of evidence" Perpetualization (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I obviously disagree that your language was tighter and the distinction you made clearer, or that I was in any way disruptive. Your edits added citations to a statement that it did not support, conflated two Indian laws and groups , and misunderstood the UK context as the men's rights group there did not oppose a law but a legal decision in the House of Lords which actually struck down marital rape as a defence in exactly the same way that the proposed Indian law would do.. You'll notice I did not restore the original entirely: I fixed what needed to be fixed and let other edits to those sentences unchanged.

No worries about the epidemic thing; I would just suggest that coupled with the above, it is important to be very careful and accurate with your edits and what you write here and in edit summaries.

I agree wholeheartedly that within the anti-feminism article we can only look at stuff about the MRM and members, and that Kimmel does not support the need more evidence material (Lee did). However, in your post above stated that because Kimmel's article was entitled "anti-feminism" it was "weak" as a source. It was that I was responding to. --Slp1 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The specific tightness I refer to is the distinction between Indian politics and US/UK politics which are quite distinct.

By "weak," I don't mean unusable, I mean "less than ideal" or "it'd be nice to find a better source which goes more in depth." Perpetualization (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand about the tightness you thought you were adding, but I think if you study the sources and the background you'll see that the distinction isn't as clear cut as you think it is.

Yeah, I can see your second point too, but there aren't actually that many academic sources and the ones that go into more depth tend to be things like Farrell, which is something of a primary source. A secondary source which highlights Farrell's more notable points is actual better.--Slp1 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are sources that suggest that the distinction isn't as clear cut as I see it, feel free to add them to the article. With the current sourcing though, there is a very clear disparity that cannot simply be glossed over.

Yes. But don't forget to keep the same thing in mind when reading feminist sources. For all social advocacy, highly opinionated authors of secondary sources often seem more like primary sources. Perpetualization (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I simply don't agree with your first point, and frankly given the number of sourcing mistakes you've made since yesterday, it worries me that you are so confident.. But I will give it a rest until tomorrow to rework this section. --Slp1 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remove this source (http://books.google.com/books?id=YBVGswoPYqMC&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false) for the marital rape claim. I cannot find any other sources which back up the claim of EJFI fighting marital rape law. As far as I can discern, EJFI is an advocate IN marital rape cases, but not regarding marital rape law. The marital rape claim is NOT the central topic of the source (gender violence from a feminist perspective is) and the source contains no footnotes to attempt to verify their claim. I considered referring it to RS/N, but figured I'd post here first. Thoughts? Perpetualization (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This is clearly a reliable source, and we don't remove sources because we can't back it up with our own original research. Indeed here is an article on the website where the founder/leader complains "marital rape" laws as a false flag . Nor is it necessary for footnotes to be given, or for it to be the central topic of the source. I see that you've mentioned this last point several times, and it really isn't valid.Slp1 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that simple. While the source is clearly reliable as a whole and that chapter as a discussion of studies about gender based violence and a contrast between the feminist and family harm approaches to analyzing violence within the home, that doesn't prevent it from having factual inaccuracies. That is to say, a "reliable source" could write a long multipage book which is for the most part accurate and have a small number of factual inaccuracies. Given the clear bias of the writer (explicitly endorsing the feminist perspective), it is not unreasonable to suggest that the claim MIGHT be an exaggeration of EJFI's work as an advocate for the accused. More to the point, a small point like that is NOT something that a critical author would write about. That statement, within the larger work, has not been held up to the same level of scrutiny as the work itself. looking at WP:RS, we see that the spirit of wikipedia's sourcing is that: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This isn't a fact that would be checked or scrutinized. I did not remove the source because I expected a discussion here about it but I do feel that it adds little of anything to the article.

With regard to the central topic of the source and the article being similar, I feel that you've misunderstood. Obviously, sources that are not about "mens rights" are still valid for inclusion in this article. Nevertheless, sources that ARE about "mens rights" are necessarily BETTER sources for the article as the author has done a greater amount of research about mens rights. When a source is about an issue only tangentially related to mens rights AND the claim is made in passing and does not even merit a whole sentence of discussion AND there are difficulties finding other sources that make the same claim, then I question the validity of the source.

Alternatively, there was also a place above where an article was about "Father's rights" (the Lee source). The paragraph cited did not even mention "mens rights." Rather, it talked about father's rights, a distinct social movement, and some of the issues its advocates branched into. The full quote is as follows: "The fathers' rights movement met with a mixed response among the general public. On the one hand, its message influenced American popular culture through such popular films as Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) and Mrs. Doubtfire (1993). On the other, it became the target of considerable criticism. While its advocates generally stressed the importance of fathers to healthy childhood development, and of fatherhood to masculine identity, some emphasized such issues as child support, the status of marital rape as a crime, and the amount of evidence required to support domestic abuse and rape cases..." Clearly, this sentence says absolutely nothing about the mens rights movement. It's a useless source for this article. Perpetualization (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a danger of miscommunication here, so I'll just try to clarify: I actually disagree that "sources that are not about "mens rights" are still valid for inclusion in this article" as that opens up the way to original research, as I have said many times. I think probably you meant something like "sources that principally focussed on /discussing men's rights/groups/activism etc etc" in which case I would agree that these are generally to be preferred, however, as you say it does not mean that these cannot be used.

Substantive discussions are good, but if a secondary source is summarizing, for example, the principal interests of men's rights groups, then that brief mention is actually a great source that this is an important issue for them.

In this particular case, we have no reason to believe that the author of a reliable source made a factual inaccuracy and a good reason to believe she got it right: many years later Corrie, the president, was still mentioning marital rape laws as a problem on the ejfi website. I'm not sure why you have ignored this point.

As you no doubt noted, I've not queried the removal of the Lee source, as it does in that paragraph specify father's rights activists (though I will note that other parts of that particular encyclopedia article-about the FRM- speaks about more general MR groups). I do think in general that excluding sources about the FRM will have some implications and might need some thought, since there is considerable overlap between the two movements and sources do tend to use the terms interchangeably at times - with at least one men's rights group morphing into a FR group for example.. But as long as we decide something sensible and stick to it, that's fine with me.--Slp1 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify. What I meant was goood (verifiable, reliable, academic, non-primary, etc.) "sources that are not about "mens rights" are still valid for inclusion in this article"

I ignored the point about the website because it wasn't a good point and because it's original research. Noting that false accusations of marital sometimes form false flags is not the same thing as opposing marital rape law. The source is a drive by attack and it's frankly unnecessary for the article. It adds little to nothing and I'm not convinced it stands on its own.

In my opinion, father's rights sources are inappropriate. The movements split fairly recently (in the world of academia) so it may limit our ability to source, but fathers rights is a movement not so firmly opposed to feminism and far closer to the mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused about what you mean, and think we still may be talking at crosspurposes. A good academic source about say, domestic violence that does not mention men's rights, the MRM, etc would not be a good source for this article, though an excellent one for the Domestic Violence article.

So you would like to rule out a source because it is your opinion that the author might have got it wrong and you can't find anything to support the statement yourself, but when I find something that does generally support the statement (about marital rape laws, no less) it is original research? It's this kind of argument that led to the "verifiability not truth" maxim.

I don't know about other editors, but I'd agree that we should not use FRM stuff; if that is the decision there will have to be some deletions/replacements of material/sources further up the article. As I said though, in some articles/books that are ostentiably about the FRM there is info and commentary about the MRM (e.g. ) which is eminently useable. --Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course.

That link doesn't support anything. It's an ambiguous sentence on a horrifically designed website. Academic sources are reliable sources because they are verifiable. I attempted to verify the authors claim and was unable to do so. I am also familiar with the smashing rhetoric sometimes used between opposing (feminist and anti-feminist groups) where supporting those accused of marital rape quickly becomes opposing marital rape which is only a small jump to opposing marital rape law. I do not think the source stands on its own. If it were the sole source used to suggest that mens rights groups opposed marital rape laws, it would be insufficient. Therefore, it is insufficient. For goodness sakes, I'm not even trying to remove a claim, just a weak source for a claim that has other sources.

One way we can use some of those sources is to say something like: "The father's rights movement, which has significant overlap with the mens right movement , says blah blah blah ." It's not ideal, but it will suffice for those claims that just have to be in the article which sources are hard to find for. Perpetualization (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment None of the following are reliable sources for what the MRM thinks or campaigns against.

• Michael Kimmel (1992), "Anti-Feminism", in Michael S. Kimmel and Amy Aronson, Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 35–37, ISBN 978-1-57607-774-0, retrieved 23 December 2011

• Donileen R. Loseke; Richard J. Gelles; Mary M. Cavanaugh (2005). Current controversies on family violence.

• Michael Kimmel (15 June 2010). Misframing Men: The Politics of Contemporary Masculinities. Rutgers University Press. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-8135-4762-6.

• Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash. University Press of New England. pp. 84–5.

Merely because a publication is a book by an academic from a university press does not automatically make it reliable. These sources are clearly partisan.

This sentence from Rape is improperly sourced and violates wiki:undue.

"Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom, the United States and India have opposed marital rape legislation and legal decisions. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings, and in India anxiety about relationships and the future of marriage as such laws give women "grossly disproportional rights"."

Unless a consensus on what constitutes reliable or undue can be obtained, then I feel we have reached a point where further formal resolution is required. This argument has been going on for a very long time and is putting an unreasonable burden on editors. CSDarrow (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are all university press sources, and are reliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise - please take it up with the WP:RSN. Merely because "an editor thinks they are too partisan" is not a reason to consider a source unreliable. The sourcing for the rape section you highlight looks adequate, there are scholarly volumes integrated in the referencing (76, 87 and 90) so unless they are misrepresented, they seem fine.

Demanding we should arbitrarily ignore our sourcing because one editor sees them as "partisan" certainly seems unreasonable. You need a better reason than "I think it's partisan" - for instance, other sources stating "X volume is inaccurate". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Those are all university press sources, and are reliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise"

This is exactly the main point of contention, I strongly contend and have argued that "academic press" or "scholarly" does not automatically mean reliable unless there is reason to think otherwise. I have made this point, strongly supported by argumentation, at the start of this whole discussion. I see you are a relative newcomer to this particular bone of contention. Misplaced Pages also does not automatically accept opinions from partisan sources as fact. I have every right to suggest a source is partisan, and will continue to do so if so inclined.

If we are back at square one with this point again then I have no choice but to take it to formal resolution. CSDarrow (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is not sufficient, you need to demonstrate these sources are unreliable. Right now there's just your opinion that a source is partisan, and it doesn't really matter. Partisan reliable sources are still reliable sources and are still usable. If you can find book reviews (ideally those published in scholarly journals) indicating sources are problematic, then that is useful. Another option would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Simply asserting you don't like the sources because of their content is not worth much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Having skimmed the section above, I think I see the issue. You raised an objection to material you didn't like, several experienced editors pointed out your objections were spurious, and you didn't like the answer you got. Well, I've just added to the consensus that your objections are spurious and do not warrant removing the material. You can do what you want next, but it won't result in you getting the answer you want because your objections are fundamentally personal, not policy-based. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not really fair. I think CSDarrow is making a legitimate point. The issue is that so many of the sources cited are opinion pieces critical of the Men's rights movement. There is nothing wrong with using academic opinion pieces as sources; but if you predominantly cite negative polemics you're allowing the movement's opponents to define its aims and motivations, and you end up with a twisted, unfair and unbalanced view. Perhaps CSDarrow is also concerned that some of the sources play fast and loose with the facts in order to push their opinions. There's nothing "spurious" about pointing that out. I don't agree that these things have caused unbalanced or unfair coverage here though. I think the MRM's concerns (ie. worries about false accusations) are stated clearly and fairly. Much better than the previous smear campaign that tried to imply MRM activists oppose marital rape laws because they want to go on raping their wives. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, men's rights activists tend to publish in low-impact, generally non-scholarly publications. Scholarly sources are generally critical and tend to point out the misrepresentations and disingenuous claims made by the movement. If there are missing independent opinion pieces positive of the goals, they can be integrated. The fact that there are few academic sources that view the movement positively is not a reason to balance the page out by removing those few, clearly reliable sources. WP:UNDUE clearly states that articles represent the topic in proportion to the views represented in reliable sources, not based on personal editor opinions. By all means incorporate reliable sources that nuance and moderate the position, or indicate that the sources we used misrepresent the MRM. If no such reliable sources can be found, that suggests that perhaps we are in fact giving due weight to the mainstream scholarly opinion.

The proper way to balance weight concerns, when one "side" is sourced to unquestionably reliable scholars and publications, is to find comparable sources for the "other side". If they don't exist, that suggests that the "other side" lacks credibility. NPOV does not mean "describe this topic in a conciliatory way", it means "describe it the way experts see it". Flat earth makes it clear that it is not an accurate depiction of reality. Creationism takes the accurate position that it is a social and political issue, not a scientific one. Homeopathy makes it obvious that the actual treatment is a placebo.

The time spent discussing these spurious objections could be far better spent taking up the suggestions made several times by several authors - looking for reliable sources that better describe the MRM, or that indicate the sources used are making factual errors. Instead the effort and push has been to try to get us to ignore our content policies because a small number of single purpose accounts don't like what the sources actually say. That's not how you write a page, but it's a great way to civilly POV-push. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I strongly disagree that NPOV says "describe it in the way experts see it". It more specifically says explain things fairly and without bias. If experts explain things in a biased manner, and we in turn do not mitigate that bias, we are still violating NPOV. Now Verifiability covers the section of relying on experts, however since this is an article about a movement, I would suggest that verifiability allows lesser academic rigour about sources which are members of the movement. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:UNDUE is "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The subsequent footnote says "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." The sources used on these points are highly reliable, and no editor has provided any evidence to the contrary besides their personal opinions. If highly reliable sources describing the movement exist and are not represented on this page - find them and include them. Reliable sources are always the limiting factor, and the fact that none have been provided to date is the reason there is not more text on the page. Again - stop wasting time with assertions, please provide sources to substantiate them instead. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we may be talking past each other at the moment. I don't have a problem with including those sources, however, I do believe that we have to be careful on wording with those sources otherwise we might run afoul of WP:IMPARTIAL, and introduce bias into the article. And the second point I was making was that some questionable sources would be considered reliable sources. I posit this since this is an article about a movement (e.g. a group of people), WP:ABOUTSELF applies and questionable publications can be used in a limited manner as a reliable source.--Kyohyi (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that aboutself applies to this article and that it opens up some sources for use that would normally be unacceptable - but it doesn't overwrite WP:NPOV. Sources that would normally be unreliable can be used in a limited way - for instance, we can use the NCFM's website as a source for when the NCFM is founded. I've used this kind of source a number of times in this article. But in NPOV'ing the article as a whole, this sort of source shouldn't figure strongly in to NPOV's calculus of "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." When all high quality independent sources say one thing and a self-published movement source says another, the article should focus by far on the overwhelmingly held position among reliable sources, while mentioning relatively briefly the self-published movement source. They certainly shouldn't be given anything approaching equal weight. (Also, per my disclaimer below: I've had a horrible migraine today and am writing this on morphine... so anything in this post that sounds crazy probably is. Don't take it as gospel; just be like 'yo, your statement makes no sense, and I'll correct it tomorrow.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. An organization's statements regarding itself should carry as much weight as the allegations of its opponents, regardless of where the respective claims are pusblished. Reyk _YO! 03:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, far more weight should be placed on independent, reliable sources because sources the organization controls can be incredibly self-serving. Put another way, should NAMBLA be given primary representation on their wikipedia page regarding the relative benefits of sex with children? An organization's statements regarding itself can be noted but the amount of weight should be far less than that found in independent, scholarly sources. In most situations, there will be independent, scholarly sources addressing the topic in multiple perspectives. In other cases, not so much. Again, no independent, scholarly sources tend to show up praising the MRM for it's laudable goals. Also, there are several sources on this page that are by men's rights activists (at least one source is even self-published). If more reliable sources can be found - great, integrate them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There are also several sources by feminist scholars. Are those okay or are they argumentative because MRM is what they oppose? I'd like to see you argue that no feminism-related articles shouldn't have feminist scholars in them because they're self-serving. --Pudeo' 17:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Feminist scholars tend to publish in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. The movement is also broader, better-known and has been a recognized discipline for decades, and has been criticized in many scholarly journals and books by scholarly press. The real issue in my mind is that so far nobody has produced a book, journal article or other reliable source that independently discusses the men's rights movement. Instead, existing sources are spuriously criticized by reference to incorrect interpretations of policies and guidelines. That's not how wikipedia is built. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the length of time the dispute on the Rape section has been going on; the fact it has unsuccessfully gone through dispute resolution and now the tone of WLU's last comments, I see no other alternative than to carry this forward to formal resolution at both WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. WP:RSN for the specific sources of the section and a general ruling on "scholarly/academic" work from academic presses. WP:NPOVN to address the undue weight issues of the section.

Unless anyone has an alternative I will prepare the cases and present them to the notice boards. The participants of this discussion will then be invited to make their arguments to the volunteers. I will wait a day or so for feed back here first. CSDarrow (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage you to consult whatever noticeboards you feel might offer valuable input. Keep in mind that many issues involving this page have already been through many noticeboards, and in *every single case* so far the consensus opinions of those boards have been in line with what WLU, others, and myself have been saying. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite. When CSDarrow took it to the dispute resolution noticeboard, consensus from uninvolved editors seemed to be that the article was a hatchet job that mis-cited sources to put words in the mouths of the MRM. I think the article is more balanced now and presents the MRM fairly (ie. their own claims regarding themselves are not subordinated to the opinions of their opponents, or vice versa). Reyk _YO! 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That one slipped my mind, just because I saw it as a relatively minor issue vs the size of the other issues on the page and didn't really pay too much attention to it. I do agree with you that the article definitely is more balanced than it used to be, although it still has significant problems.

I am curious though: where do you get the idea that the claims of the MRM should be presented equally with the claims of their opponents? I don't view that as an appropriate paradigm, and don't think it's consistent with policies such as WP:NPOV etc. We shouldn't be shooting for some sort of weird neutrality in a vacuum presenting both sides equally thing - we should be presenting what is said in reliable sources in rough proportion to how it is presented in reliable sources. We write with a neutral point of view, not a sympathetic point of view; we don't let adherents of movements dictate the contents of articles about their movements. If we did, then NAMBLA would be a pretty weird article. We shouldn't be looking at this as if it was some sort of adversarial thing - it shouldn't matter if a source is anti-MRM or pro-MRM - all that should matter is if it reliable, relevant, verifiable, and preferably secondary (because using primary sources tends to end up as original research.) Personally I've made an active effort to get my hands on every reliable relevant verifiable secondary source I can find, and the vast majority of what I have found is analysis of the movement by gender academics (some of whom, but not all of whom, are feminist or pro-feminist) that tends to view the movement negatively - which should thus by npov be the predominant opinion expressed in the article.

Though I rarely mention this kind of thing... I have a pretty severe migraine today, and am on morphine. So it's totally possible that there are parts of this post that don't make sense. If any of these statements seem to just totally not make sense, it's safe to assume that it's a mistake on my part rather than anything intentional. I'll come back in a day or so and reread over recent comments on this page just to make sure I'm not totally insane in this comment. I really am sorry for any incoherencies, and hope this mostly makes sense to you. Kevin Gorman (talk)

I think I've been a bit unclear. I've been trying to say that the MRM's statements regarding their own opinions and goals should not be disregarded just because they don't publish those views in academic journals. Also, the people themselves should never be seen as such a minority that stating their views would violate WP:UNDUE. Reyk _YO! 04:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen multiple people pose the argument that since the main stream sources view the mens rights movement negatively, then this article should reflect that. Am I understanding this argument correctly?--Kyohyi (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kyohyi, that's basically correct. More accurately - sources by the MRM make specific claims but the independent scholarly articles tend to identify these claims as factually inaccurate, co-optive, biased and/or disingenuous. To date I have not seen equally reliable sources claiming these conclusions are wrong.

To everyone, if there are missing scholarly sources that are more positive about the MRM, please provide them. If there are sources for what the MRM represents overall that are missing, please provide them. Skimming several sections, the page seems to spend considerable time discussing the concerns of the MRM. In several of those sections, where a scholarly response has been found, it is summarized. What is missing? What is wrongt with the current page? Vague statements of bias are not really helpful, but specific suggestions regarding wording and sourcing will move the page forward. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with most of the content in this article, however I do believe that the way a number of sources are presented introduce bias through wording or positioning in the article. The point of the article should be what is the mens rights movement, who are they, and what do they claim. Whether or not their claims are valid is pushing a point of view.

From my reading, The last two sentences of the second paragraph in the history section imply that those arguments made by the mens rights movement are rhetoric. Or more specifically are only rhetoric, and are not logically valid. Unfortunately the sources cited are behind a paywall for me, and I cannot see what is specifically said to see if it can be re-written differently.

Also upon some further scanning the use of the term "Academics" is often used when leading into sections from critics. Unfortunately those sources are behind a paywall, and I cannot check them. Does anyone know if they do say that Academics say these things?--Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, may I suggest you start a new section and copy or move these specific issues to that section. Or, now that you have a better appreciation of the relevant policies and guidelines you could make the changes and see what the response is. Note however, that it is perfectly acceptable to link to and summarize sources that criticize the MRM claims for being invalid. A common misunderstanding is that "neutral" means "uncritical". It does not. Please also see WP:PAYWALL, and note that "academic" is used substantively three times in the article. In each case the appended citation is to a peer-reviewed journal or a scholarly book, thus the source is academic (and all such sources are privileged far beyond nonscholarly sources) even if the author might not be. Teasing out each one to "X, a researcher on gender studies at the University of Y" would be a potentially tedious and probably frustrating activity, but it would probably give more authority to their commentary which would be a good thing. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WLU that it would be a good idea to start a new section with your concerns - this section is difficult to follow. I have (or have access to) almost every source used in this article, and would be glad to check particulars for you (or where necessary provide brief quotes from the sources.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename article: "Feminist Perspectives on the MRM"?

Several comments (above) are revealing of the elephant in the room -- most of the references in the article are to sources written by feminist authors who view the MRM in a negative light. Kevin noted above:

"...the vast majority of what I have found is analysis of the movement by gender academics (some of whom, but not all of whom, are feminist or pro-feminist) that tends to view the movement negatively - which should thus by npov be the predominant opinion expressed in the article."

That is an interesting take on NPOV.

Imagine an article "The Democratic Party" primarily written and sourced by Republicans. NPOV? Hypothetically, and with substantial hyperbole, imagine that the majority of WP editors in 1940 German language edition of WP were Nazis -- Nazism would thus be NPOV in the article on The Rights of Jewish People in Germany?

MRM folks would likely suggest that the fact that there are many Women's Studies, but so few Men's Studies, academic departments is itself a MRM issue (and, that it violates U.S. Title IX). And, there is emphasis placed on academic sources over non-academic ones. Yet, ironically, when professor Benatar does write a book about men's rights, The Second Sexism, some have objected to using it as a reference here because it is about men's rights, but not about the MRM per se. Imagine an article on the feminist movement that did not include considerations of women's rights (especially after the "women's rights" article was folded into the "feminist movement" article, leaving no article on "women's rights").

Is the article a neutral and an accurate overview of the MRM and the men's rights for which it advocates? Memills (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The "problem" is that the men's rights movement has not drawn the attention of male scholars, but has been of interest to female scholars. If male scholars wrote about the topic then we would quote them. The fact that a scholar is female does not change Misplaced Pages's respect for scholarly thought. You will have to work within the lack of male scholars.

The article most certainly will not change to your proposed title, which is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this falls under the FORUM-guideline, but of course there are no MRM advocants in women's studies scholars because they are based on the feminist theory. Every basic course of gender studies starts with certain points that directly are against men's rights movement ideas so it's hardly surprising. But I think the problem here is that we're talking about academic debate. Sociology, as not an exact science relies on such arguments and debate. Sometimes scholars even publish provocative articles that have completely different viewpoints than others. As such, we can't really compare these sources to verifying a physics-related fact from physics scholars for example. --Pudeo' 02:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-read WP:NPOV, particuarly WP:STRUCTURE, and also look at WP:POVFORK. Articles are not split into "pro" and "anti", or "masculinist" and "feminist" versions. It's a single page. The defining feature of a reliable source is reliability, not whether it agrees with the page's subjects or the opinions of specific editors. "Feminist" criticisms should not be removed or ghettoized because they do not adopt the POV of the page's subjects. Expand the page with reliable "masculinist" sources. Please stop suggesting splitting, forking or otherwise inapprropriately separating either the page, or the page contents, into competing viewpoints. Improve the page by expanding it with more reliable sources. Do not try to "improve" the page by tearing out the sources and sections you do not like. "Neutrality" is based on sources, not on editor opinions. Accept this and move on. Perhaps try google books or google scholar rather than trying variations of already-rejected appeals on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 05:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Having really read and analyzed a few of the sources now, I'm beginning to understand what CSDarrow was getting at earlier. That even so-called academic sources can be unreliable for the purpose of writing a fair and balanced article. Many of them are complete crap, particularly when they attempt to describe what the men's rights groups actually say. This is a good example. It's not a source used in this article, but it's a good example of what I'm annoyed about; other sources in this article do similar things but more subtly and less disgustingly. While the author is scrupulous about properly citing feminist literature, he frequently puts words in the mouths of fathers' rights groups without any citation. See the last paragraph of the "overview" and the last sentence on page 334. Where can I look up where father's rights groups have said or done any of these things? The last of these is especially dodgy because he conflates a presumption of shared parenting generally with a presumption of shared parenting in cases where domestic violence is suspected. The whole thing seems to be a case of what I describe here.

I come from a hard sciences background and I am frankly amazed that trash like this can even be published. If I were to criticize the opinions of another researcher I would not get away with stating his views for him. My paper would be returned to me with the instructions to carefully and methodically find and cite the works where he has said the things I'm attributing to him, and rightly so. This apparently is not the case in feminist literature, and I find it a bit alarming that a Misplaced Pages article can rest on such rotten foundations.

But WLU is right about this, that we have to do the best we can with the sources at hand. If all the literature in scholarly journals on gender studies are complete baloney, then we're stuck with it and have to write articles that are also complete baloney. My analysis above is, of course, a lot of original research and we should not base the contents of articles on original research. We evaluate sources to determine how much they contribute to notability, like are they independent and substantive, but I'm not sure how far we should go to evaluate their accuracy. Unless an equal and opposite body of literature arises that defends and promotes the MRM, or feminist journals suddenly develop a tradition of honesty and intellectual rigor like that found in the physical sciences, we're stuck with the current unbalanced status quo. However, we should not let it degenerate into an anti-male polemic either. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• High-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics