Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Removal of Williams, 1995

Having read through the entire source, there is no mention of Men's Rights, the Men's Rights Movement or Feminism. In fact the entire article is completely independent of any particular movement, providing coverage of how movements behave in general, not providing an opinion or coverage of movements themselves. The source does not in any way support what it is listed as supporting. This fails WP:ORIG because it is applying conclusions reached in the source to organizations not covered by the source.

I have not changed the wording of the article at all, even though there is now a statement that us un-cited, as I have not had time to go through the other source used in conjunction with 14 in the "Relation to feminism" section. Ismarc (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Ismarc on page 134 of that article it says:

Men's Rights groups (with names such as "Dads Against Discrimination" or "Fathers for Equal Rights") have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement (see Williams and Williams forthcoming) to argue that custody decisions regarding children should be based on impersonal criteria such as income rather than any preference toward maternal care:

The article deals with more ideas relating to men's movements on page 135 and 136, you may have missed it. Williams also has another article called 'All we want is equality: Rhetorical framing in the men's rights movement'. There's probably more info in that one, but the article you mention does in fact relate directly to the topic. Also FYI WP:ORG has nothing to do with whether a source is usable in an article, its only purpose is in determining whether an organization is notable enough for an article on wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, I missed that, thank you for catching it. And I was mentioning WP:ORIG, not WP:ORG, because I didn't see anything relating directly to the article in the source (instead I saw how the source could be applicable in an analysis, but not directly relating). Ismarc (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored the citation but I added a relevant quote from page 134 to help in future discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(Hope I'm indenting at the right level...) Cailil, I've gone through that source for that section several times now, and it does support the statement it's cited with of

"The men's rights movement is generally understood as a backlash or countermovement to feminism."

However, for

Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.

it does not use the term or insinuation that the rhetoric was co-opted, instead calling it "adopted". I have been unable to find any reference to it outside the issue of family law (understandable given the the scope and goal of the source), but does appear to use family law as one example. I wouldn't want to draw conclusions that don't exist in the source, but would have no issues if the statement was presented in the same tone as the source (preferred route would be to use "adopted" instead of "co-opted" for that line). I haven't had a chance to go back through the other source cited for that statement (it's fairly long, so it may be a bit before I get all the way through it, I don't want to miss anything like before), but if it doesn't support the statement's tone and position, I would rather see a citation that does. I also did a quick search of what I have access to and didn't find 'All we want is equality: Rhetorical framing in the men's rights movement' (just found citations to it), so I haven't been able to go through that article to see if it more closely represents what is present. (and my last thought, this should probably be included in the section over this up above on the talk page, but this is more about the source content than wording).Ismarc (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was only replying to your comment that "there [was] no mention of Men's Rights, the Men's Rights Movement or Feminism". I'd be 100% on board with correcting the text to match the source. It might be best to rewrite as Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement".--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the way Cailil has rewritten it here - "co-opted" isn't a neutral way of paraphrasing a source that says "adopted," the words have rather different connotations. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:

"The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of "children's needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

What relevance does this have to a section on Relation to Feminism. Rhys Davies is not presenting himself as a feminist commentator and the comment itself has no reference to feminism. It is also being presented as a fact, when in fact it's someones opinion. CSDarrow (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's being presented as Rhys Williams opinion if you use it the way I suggested above:

Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement"

--Cailil ^talk 12:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammatically it would not suggest the second sentence is linked to Rhys Williams. Otherwise the previous two sentences would also suggest that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg believe:- "Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism etc .....". The question as to what this sentence has to do with Relation to Feminism still stands, as does did Rhys Williams actually say that? Or have I lost track of what the 2 final sentences have morphed into at present?

I would also raise the question of the significance of Rhys Williams' opinions. His work is nearly 20yrs old, and as far I we see atm is the only person who has made this point. Wikipedia chronicles significant opinions, I would question that a single 18yr old opinion is significant.

CSDarrow (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Williams' statement will forever be applicable to its time, and should stand as it is until challenged by a peer who says that the MRM did not adopt feminist rhetoric. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'logic' of your response is utterly lost on me.CSDarrow (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Grammatically it attributes the quote to Williams. There could only be confusion if the cite is incorrectly placed. The section could be better strcutured as a whole - it doesn't need to be one paragraph. Right now its just chuncks of information banged together. Also the weaselish "which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest" could simply be dropped - its not necessary.
The essay itself is well cited (by others[1]) and well sourced (in that the journal that published it is reliable and notable for scholarship) that is what/how we assess significance - in an article that needs more well sourced material such an argument is a cul de sac I'm afraid--Cailil ^talk 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2) I agree with Binksternet, the Williams cite should stay. It was actually moved out of the History section recently,[2] as irrelevant, but I disagree with that assessment - it's pretty clearly relevant to the History section given its age. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no especial problem with Rhys Williams' thoughts in general be included provided they are pertinent to "Relation to Feminism". My main concern is with the 'weaslish' content which seems an attempt to soapbox another notion onto the entry, by way of an example. If this is removed and the rest wordsmithed a bit I am fine. There is however a difference between using the same rhetoric and adopting someones rhetoric. The later suggests one was inspired by the other group, either case is still pertinent to the section. CSDarrow (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been slowly going through sources I have access to as well as looking at other suitable sources with the intent to completely restructure the section, providing 3 general headings for it: 1) the theory/beliefs behind the Men's Rights Movement (non-critical statements of what they believe and why, without any value judgements of those beliefs), 2) how it relates to feminism (comparison of both similar and dissimilar ideals) and 3) criticisms and analysis of those beliefs/theory. As the article stands now, it's nearly impossible to determine what the core beliefs of the Men's Rights Movement are because statements critical of those beliefs are mixed in with the definition of them. The idea is to make it clear what the movement's goals and beliefs are, how that relates to feminism and then have that contrasted against (researched, studied and expert) opinions of the movement and their goals and beliefs. It's going to take some time to get through all the sources before I'm confident there is enough to structure it this way, a few days at least. Ismarc (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Long overdue. Memills (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Children's needs rhetoric

The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of "children's needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[14]"

Have been wp:bold and removed the sentence. As it is entirely inadequate due to the weasel example. If someone wants to wordsmith it then perhaps we can re-include in another form. CSDarrow (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Three experienced editors, Cailil, Binksternet and Dawn Bard, have explained to you that the reference should stay. You removed it anyway. I am the forth experienced editor to ask that you refrain from removing sourced content which directly and unambiguously supports the description. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, these sentences have been discussed very extensively and in a refreshingly civilised manner. My edit is not entirely out of step with this discussion, which I suggest you read. Wikipedia is not governed by a majority, by reputation or by patently thin and uniformed reasoning of the likes you have offered. I have edit reverted and invite you to join the discussion before editing further. CSDarrow (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is a reason to change the summary accompanying by a source, not a reason to remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read my reason for deleting further above, which includes:- "If someone wants to wordsmith it then perhaps we can re-include in another form." Why was this re-sectioned? It was part of a larger discussion and the context of my words and action has gone. CSDarrow (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Smaller sections speed previews. I've moved the sentence to the history section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply put you have just recently entered this talk page and undone the good faith and constructive work of a number of editors. I suggest you read WP:DISRUPT especially the section on consensus building and WP:CTDAPE. I have reverted you edit. CSDarrow (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your initial objection was that it was not appropriately placed in the "relation to feminism" section, so I moved it into the history section. You objected to it on the basis of age, and Binksternet noted that Williams' opinion is appropriate in the history section, particularly since it has not been since refuted. I agree with this point. Cailil pointed out that this is a reliable source. I agree. Dawn Bard agreed with Binksternet and Cailil that Williams should stay and that it should be kept in the history section. I agree with this also. You objected to the "weaselish" content. I don't see it as weaselish, it is a specific criticism of the MRM. WP:WEASEL does not apply that I can see, and as I said before, is a reason to change the wording, not remove a source. Sonicyouth agreed with Dawn Bard, Binksternet and Cailil. That's now five editors agreeing the source should remain, and me specifically pointing the one guideline you are alluding to doesn't apply. "Wordsmithing" is a reason to suggest different phrasings, it is not removal. WP:DE does not apply since I've been here less than four hours. "Consensus" does not mean "whatever I want", consensus means how the current page content links with the overall policies and guidelines which document the consensus of the larger wikipedia community. The constructive work of numerous editors seems to support keeping that citation and phrase, and your objections don't seem to be based on anything found in the policies and guidelines. Are there any issues I am missing? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Men's rights activists adopted the feminist rhetoric of 'rights'....... is motivated by self-interest" quote.

The sentences in the History section:-

Men's rights activists adopted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[7][5][8] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest

are being quoted as a fact when it they are an opinion, they also do not belong in the History Section. Also the second sentence advances the extra notion

"... frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest".

These are Weasel words as they are coatracking a pejorative opinion for which there is not a demonstrated significant support, in violation of WP:UNDUE. I have removed the final sentence and replaced the other in the Relation to Feminism section; in the form originally crafted by Cailil. If some one wants to wordsmith the other sentence to remove the offending example then fine.

All of this is not entirely out of step with what has been extensively discussed before.

CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All your concerns have been addressed by multiple editors in the previous two sections. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sonicyouth, This section was discussed extensively before you and another came in here like a bull in a china shop and undid the good work of others. Answer the points I have made above which are in line with the consensus that had been achieved s, and answer them please. Also read the talk pages before you start editing in future please. Simple put you can't state opinions as facts or use weasel words, this is not advanced stuff Sonicyouth. CSDarrow (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences have been discussed extensively and no editors agreed with your repeated demands to delete them and the three sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No they were discussed extensively before you and another arrived and broad a consensus was arrived at. To say you have discussed them is perhaps a stretch in my opinion. Answer my points before editing, read them above. CSDarrow (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They were discussed extensively before and the result was that Cailil, Binksternet, Dawn Bard, and WLU disagreed with your deletion of sourced material. I am the fifth experienced editor who tells you to stop. By the way, may I remind you that this article is on article probation and this is completely uncalled for? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Untrue depiction of events, stop edit warring, answers my points and read WP:PILLARS. CSDarrow (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the second sentence is that the way it is written violates WP:NPOV, or more specifically, WP:IMPARTIAL. I recommend to fix this that it should be attributed to the person stating it, and not have it stated by Wikipedia's Voice. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating a misapprehension of policies and guidelines does not make your argument more convincing.

There are now four sources for that statement, sourced to five different individuals, suggesting it is not Williams' sole opinion.

Please note that I summarized the previous discussion immediately before you added a new subsection. Was I incorrect in my summary? Because that summary seemed to indicate you didn't have support for your actions despite claiming above that you do.

Note the full quote of WP:IMPARITAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." This is about presenting viewpoints; what viewpoints are there, besides yours, that disagree with the statement now referenced to four sources? It sounds like you want to remove this text because you disagree with it. This is inappropriate, what you need are sources that disagree with it. Do you have any? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition to "Relation to Feminism" section

Looking at Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse", page 269-270 provides coverage directly relating to the anti-feminism and the perspectives of the men's rights advocates. Rather than try to summarize myself (due to the current status of the page), I've included the two paragraphs that I believe contain either good for pulling quotes from or to summarize.

“ The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity. To the contrary, men's rights advocates are critical of the ways masculinity has entrapped, limited, and harmed men, and they want to reconstruct masculinity that is more healthful, peaceful, and nurturing. More important, they do not see feminism as the way to accomplish this improvement in men's lives. Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges. ”

“ Thus, to men's rights advocates, while the women's movement now allows a woman to "have her cake and eat it too,"the continued imposition of a rigidly narrow male sex role results primarily in costs to men (and ultimately to the family, schools, and other institutions). For these men, what is now needed is a movement that will free men, who will then counter these destructive effects of feminism. ”

Ismarc (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks not relevant to this thread.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Have their cake and eat it too?" A "return to patriarchal arrangements?" We never left them. TODAY they are trying to pull tee-shirts off Amazon that read "Keep Calm and Hit Her", "Keep Calm and Rape a Lot" and "Keep Calm and Rape Them". Which part of the cake is this? But if you hurry you can probably still get one. Carptrash (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, your post is off-topic. We aren't here to debate the statements in a given source. In addition, what kind of shirt is being sold on amazon is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not the place to try to prove the patriarchal conspiracy theory. Please keep your discussion on point from now on.yhwhsks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC) And here I am being lectured about wikipedia process by a red link who does not even kow enough to sigh his edits. Impressive Carptrash (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked out the article. While it IS in a peer review journal, this is the author's opinion with no factual data to support it. Now debatable as the view may be, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to back up these claims- they are simply an opinion. I think it would be more effective to have hard data that supports the argument, rather than these quotes. Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(Moved your response to below the full quotes to keep things together). It is the author's analysis of what members of the Men's Rights Movement SAY that their beliefs are, which does include sourced and researched information (using Free Men as an example). Enumerating the beliefs of a group doesn't require an assessment of the validity of their claims or data to support or discredit their views. That would be covered in a section on criticism, or where the belief/issues were covered in more detail, so long as the data to validate/invalidate the point was in relation to the Men's Rights Movement (example, False Accusations of Rape would need hard data as it relates to the Men's Rights Movement, pulling in unrelated data for or against it being an issue that's unrelated would be WP:ORIG). There are numerous (every source I've studied that's already cited in the article that I've gone through so far) has reached the same conclusion as to what the Men's Rights Movement believes, the suggestion of these quotes was because they were succinctly put. Ismarc (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the comment down, it's much appreciated (and sorry about the misfire). I think your clarification is great. I would simply suggest putting before the quotes some contextual sentence along the lines of "Generalizing about the beliefs held by men's rights movement activists, Messner states that...QUOTE." That way his quote is not being presented as a hard and steadfast truth, but as his own gloss and generalization about beliefs Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough...those two quotes are word-for-word copied directly out of the source that is from a peer reviewed academic journal that is used multiple times in the article already, including statements critical of the Men's Rights Movement that are being debated elsewhere on the talk page. There were indeed a large number of statements within that source that described the Men's Rights Movement's beliefs, but I found that these two were the most succinct and easily extracted without losing the context of what was said. These are not my words, they are not suggested text (unless others agree that using them as direct quotes about the Men's Rights Movement's opinion on feminism would be appropriate) and I do not understand why political statements against the content of sources are being made on the talk page here rather than discussing the content of the article. Ismarc (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

More of the same.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
because, fair or not, I tend, at least in my less appealing moods, to give very little respect to editors who come charging into an article such as this and have not been here long enough to even have blue links on their user pages. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, your discussion continues to be irrelevant. If all you can think to post is ad hominems and non-sequiturs, your contributions aren't required. Please keep on topic or don't participate. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I checked out the article. While it IS in a peer review journal, this is the author's opinion with no factual data to support it. Now debatable as the view may be, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to back up these claims- they are simply an opinion. I think it would be more effective to have hard data that supports the argument, rather than these quotes. Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC) This is to suggest that your edits ARE required? Interesting. Carptrash (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, I am not a new account, I know how to sign my posts, and I tell you your behviour is getting increasingly obnoxious. Comment on the content of the posts rather than the age of the commenter's account or their grasp of Wiki markup. Those are ad hominem attacks. Reyk YO! 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cailil. Closing the entire thread due to misbehavior of one user is an inappropriate action in this case. I intend to work on the original content of this thread in a productive manor. I imagine that ismarc intends to as well. Please talk to carptrash individually.Yhwhsks (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I can respect Reyk(javik)'s sentiments. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

More.--v/r - TP 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And thank you Yhwhsks for going blue. No big deal to you, but I have several thousand articles on my watchlist and feel a need to check out edits by anonymous and red linked editors. These is some of my (I hope you will agree) more appropriate actions. Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit by 99.185.132.212

That edit was mine, forgot to log in before editing.Ismarc (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete block of content

Added here

The first citation's link is incorrect and should be http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf. The second citation's link is incorrect but the content of the source is available at http://www.markwynn.com/sex-assault/false-allegations-recantations-unfounding-in-the-context-of-sa-2008.pdf.

The entire addition adds rates referenced directly from a source independent of the Men's Rights Movement (FBI crime index) for unfounded accusations, uses the second source to clarify that unfounded is not the same as false accusations, then quotes a source that refutes the use of these rates to represent false rape allegations, again with no association to the Men's Rights Movement (for or against, it is a direct examination of the FBI's reported numbers on false rape accusations. I propose the entire portion added be deleted per WP:SYNTH, as none of the content is related to the Men's Rights Movement or their stance on false rape allegations based on the sources. I have no issue with coverage of the Men's Rights Movement's perspective on the prevalence of false rape allegations, given that there is a source that examines the issue. Nor do I have an issue with coverage of claims against the use of those numbers, given there is a source that examines the issue from a perspective associated with the Men's Rights Movement.

At the time I deleted the content initially, I was quick to delete because it contained links to sources that led to 404's and documents not being found and was a clear synthesis of information rather than relating to the Men's Rights Movement in any way. When I saw that the change was reverted, I went back through in more detail, finding the appropriate links to the sources cited and more thoroughly read their content and I still feel the same way about it. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good eye Ismarc. This section is supposed to be about false rape accusations which are completely separate beast from unfounded allegations. Even the source itself states that the statistic is essentially meaningless because it doesn't have a consistent definition from one locality to another. In other words, statistics about unfounded allegations do not make us more informed about false rape statistics in any way, shape or form. I am sure this might be a useful thing to discuss somewhere, but not here. It is probably a good idea to take the axe to that blockYhwhsks (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Ismarc. I would certainly support axing the whole block; as you and Yhwhsks say, it's just not directly relevant to the topic at hand, so it's a little SYNTH-y to shoehorn it in here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree clearly not directly linked to this topic belongs in an article abour rape statistics not here--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus appears that the content isn't appropriate to have here, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. The content appears on False accusation of rape, so I'm going to modify the remaining section to link to that page so that those who want to see more detail about that topic independent of the Men's Rights Movement has easy access to it. Ismarc (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Supporting removal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The last edit to the article

one by User:Yhwhsks, included a lot of changes, mostly additions I believe, to what were referenced sections. I am accepting on good faith that all the changes made will be reflected in those references. Carptrash (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss anything you disagree with and why. I am more than willing to discuss it in a civil matter. Most of the change involved consolidation of two redundant sentences. Even if the current form isn't final, I think this is a better draft to work from compared to what was there before. Yhwhsks (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with anything and yes, I will be civil. I'm asking you a question. You just added (I think you added it) "protection from false rape accusations" to the opening, referenced section. I am asking, if I look at those sources will I find " protection from false rape accusations" there? Since I did not find that phrase in an earlier version I am assuming that it is not part of the redundant issue, so, where did it come from? Carptrash (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And I believe that you added this section

"The men's rights movement explicitly rejects a number of feminist concepts including patriarchy theory, institutional discrimination, and gender as a social construct."

and I am looking through the references listed and just not finding it. Now I can only access one of the books on line, so if you would please give the page number in the other book where this can be found I will be able to go to bed knowing that my faith in you is justified. Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of these things come from the messner citation. Despite a disagreement with positions MRA take on several issues, he does state what their positions are. The false rape accusation concern can be found on page 255, and the rationale for the later sectoin can be found on page 266 and 267. As a side note, looking at these quotations again, it appears that citations 2-5 might actually all be the same article from messner. this should probably be fixed.Yhwhsks (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel as if I have slipped into an alternative parallel universe with what is going on in our article and on this discussion page. There is nothing about rape, false charges or othrewide, on my version of Messner's page 255 and on page 256 I find, "This movement (the men;s movement) tended to emphasize the primary importance of joining with women to confront patriarchy, with the goal of doing away with men's institutional privileges." This not only does not seem to support your edits, it seems to say exactly the opposite? What are we going to do so that our two very different universes can be joined as one? Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I too have seen some creative interpretation of Messner recently. Distortion of sources is a violation of the verifiability policy. Distortion of source to further a particular point of view is a violation of the NPOV policy. Please keep these policies in mind when editing. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two potential sources for "The Limits of the Male Sex Role", the full version available in Gender and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, (Jun., 1998), pp. 255-276 and parts of the article is available in "Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements", pp. 36-48. I haven't had time to see what differences there are, but given that the author states that parts of the article appear in the book, I prefer to use the full article. I'm not sure where you're accessing the article from, but, using http://www.jstor.org/stable/190285, the full context of the line you pulled out is

On one hand, an overtly anti-feminist men's rights movement developed. Men's rights organizations stressed the costs of narrow conceptions of masculinity to men and either downplayed or angrily disputed feminist claims that patriarchy benefited men at women's expense. On the other hand, a pro-feminist (some-times called "antisexist") men's movement developed. This movement tended to emphasize the primary importance of joining with women to confront patriarchy, with the goal of doing away with men's institutionalized privileges.

Page 269, 3rd paragraph then contains

The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights advocates are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to patriarchal arrangements and traditional masculinity. To the contrary, men's rights advocates are critical of the ways masculinity has entrapped, limited, and harmed men, and they want to reconstruct masculinity that is more healthful, peaceful, and nurturing. More important, they do not see feminism as the way to accomplish this improvement in men's lives. Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges.

I could not find anywhere in the source that rejects gender as a social construct. All I was able to find was that the pro-feminist men's movement rejected sex role theory while the Men's Rights Movement did not. I haven't looked at the other sources and will take it on good faith that they are supportive of the statement as well, given that the Messner source clearly covers 2/3 of the statement. While Messner is extremely critical of the views and beliefs of the Men's Rights Movement, the introductory section of this Wikipedia article is presenting an overview of the beliefs, theory and views of the Men's Rights Movement, not claims about the validity of those views. There is no modification to the tone or intent of the source when stating the beliefs that Messner enumerates. Ismarc (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ismarc, the source I recently added verifies the mrm's stance on gender as a social construct.

I would ask that both kaldari and carpfish actually read the sources in question before making baseless accusations. It would help if you went to the actual pages I suggested rather than to pages of your own choosing.

I would like to point out that the majority of the content in my edit was there before I made it. Meaning, this was primarily a rewording of issues already listed previously. Issues I did not originally add.

It would do you good to take a moment for both of you to review WP:CIV and WP:GOODFAITH. Comments like "I feel as if I have slipped into an alternative parallel universe with what is going on in our article and on this discussion page. " and "What are we going to do so that our two very different universes can be joined as one?" are obnoxious and unproductive. You have already been warned once about obnoxious behavior carptrash. Moreover, it is completely out of line if you aren't going to read the whole source. Without reading this source you are in no position to judge whether "interpretations" are accurate or not.

On page 271 he describes men's rights organizations as "antipatriarchical."

on page 255

"golderberg directly asserted that male privilege is a myth"

On page 266.

"men's lower life span, health problems, military conscription, and divorce and custody laws were used as evidence of men's oppression"

"Men's rights advocates were claiming that men are the true victims of prostituion, pornography, dating rituals, sexist media conventions, divorce settlements, false rape accusations, sexual harrassment, and even domestic violence"

on page 270

"Just the opposite, they disagree with the feminist contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges. " Yhwhsks (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to correct a small part of your above statement, in the version I have access to and linked, the Goldberg quote appears on page 265, 3rd paragraph, not on page 255. And for the source not covering the gender as a social construct, I merely wanted to be crystal clear about what I saw as covered within Messner vs. not. I didn't want to end up appearing to speak to something I wasn't. Ismarc (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll stick with my alternative universe theory (sorry if this is offensive and obnoxious to you),but on second thought, perhaps Alice in Wonderland would be better, because I see nothing about "golderberg directly asserted that male privilege is a myth" on p255, Gender & Society. So, ? Carptrash (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read the entire source carptrash before disputing its content any further.Yhwhsks (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide page numbers to reference your edits. That is how it works. You say something is on page 255 then it is supposed to be there. If I say that the concept of men's rights begins in the Bible I don't expect you to read the whole book, I am supposed to tell you, as they say, book, chapter and verse. Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than the Goldberg assertion, which appears on page 265, rather than 255, is there any content that you still believe to be unsupported by the sources provided? At this point, I'm very familiar with the Messner sources and have it fresh in my mind, which is the only reason I weighed in on this discussion. I've been carefully reading through and studying the Messner works for the past couple of days as I've been familiarizing myself with as much of the sources as possible to start working on revamping the "Relation to Feminism" section to clearly define and source what the Men's Rights Movement believes, including its relation to feminism and then criticisms of the movement (with the goal of then having coverage of each issue clearly define what the Men's Rights Movement claims and then criticisms of that claim) giving proper weight to perspectives based on what's been published about the Men's Rights Movement. If you have been unable to find any of the quotes that have been extracted and placed here, could you either check against the JSTOR version I linked (if you have JSTOR access), or link to the version you've been using (if digital) or the printing run/ISBN (if hardcopy) so the discrepancies can be reconciled? The only discrepancy I've seen so far has been Yhwhsks having some references to page 255 when it's content that is on page 265 of what I've been studying. Ismarc (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did accidentally say that the goldberg quote was on 255. This was a typo. However, when I first suggested pages, I said 266 and 267 to start with. If carptrash had read that page she would have already seen that quote. If she had looked for the quotes I correctly identified on page 266, she would have seen that quote. If she had read the entire article like I suggested after that, she would have seen the qoute. That she continues having a problem suggests she is not attempting to read the source. Since this information is quite evident, this conversation only serves to create undue disruption to this talk page. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A slight tangent, but I am glad that my attempts to get in touch with my feminine side have been so successful. You ought to try it sometime. Carptrash (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't adding anything to the conversation. We also don't need to know what you do when your alone in the bathroom. In addition, please keep your sexual harassment off of this page. I have no desire to touch your feminine side. There is no telling where that has been. Yhwhsks (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to begin using Template:Rp for citations

Given the confusion on where a particular source supports a particular statement here, I suggest we begin using Template:Rp to indicate page numbers when referencing a source multiple times. This will result in some visual clutter, but I think it'd be better than having the same source multiple times in the footnotes section given the number of entries in footnotes already and the fact that a large number of them are used 2+ times. Ismarc (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If by " confusion" you mean looking for references where they are claimed to be but not showing up, then anything that helps is a good thing. I was not familiar with the process or template that you've provided us with, it looks as if it could be very useful, so thank you. Carptrash (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Some users have a lot of trouble correctly reading the comments of other editors, and find it nearly impossible to actually read sources. This might help those with limited ability to read. We should definitely take this horse to water. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert by Ismarc

I apologize if I'm bringing up something that was discussed and resolved. Ismarc rewrote a sentence supported by the two sources given and attributed it to Rhys H. Williams (sociologist). Apart from the fact that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is for dealing with biased sources (there is no evidence that Williams belongs in that category), Ismarc ignored the Michael Messner source which states: "Although men's rights organizations have a broad agenda of change, the issue of fathers' rights has been their most successful rallying point... Fathers' rights discourse has attempted, with some success, to co-opt the liberal feminist rhetoric of gender "equality" and "rights" to forge a campaign to forge a campaign that aims to alter laws related to divorce and child custody."

Williams states: "Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone: The initial claims of fathers' rights groups... portrayed their definitions of the problem as reflecting a societal consensus and their proposed solution as benefitting the entire public, rather than as political positions with distinct constituencies. In the case of the fathers' groups, the use of gender-neutral language and a rhetoric of rights allowed them to claim that they were the ones fighting against sexism and promoting true gender equality (ColtraneandHickman1992:416)."

The original phrasing was based on the sources. Attributing the POV to Williams is unnecessary because he is not a biased source and ignoring Messner makes no sense. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the content should reflect the sources and that Williams is not a special case, which is what prompted the discussion initially (co-opted vs. adopted carry different connotations). The entire section needs restructured and redone and, not being familiar with the topic, I've been studying the sources in preparation. Using a quotation was suggested in the meantime so there didn't need to be a continued discussion about whether the sentence reflected the source. If you would like to reword those two sentences to reflect the tone and intent of the relevant portions of the sources, it would be appreciated so long as each time we change that section, we're improving compared to all previous states. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to address the fact that due to the limitations of what writing can convey, there is a problem for the lay reader who sees quote around "rights" etc. They, like us, will perceive that this was the result of an editor rather than the source. I think this can be resolved if directly quote most of those sentences, then replace the " with '. Unfortunately, because of the confusion that could be caused by having the quotes around single words, I don't think it is an option to leave it as is. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Co-opt" is used by Messner. "Adopt" is used by nobody under discussion. The word "adopt" can mean borrow the style of another with an attitude of respect to the source, while "co-opt" means take the style of another without respecting them. With the antagonistic foundation of MRM against feminism, the word "co-opt" is the right one. The MRM does not respect feminism for its rhetoric which they took for its effectiveness. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Adopt is used by the Williams source, in the sentences immediately preceding what was quoted above

Men's Rights groups (with names such as "Dads Against Discrimination" or "Fathers for Equal Rights") have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement (see Williams and Williams forthcoming) to argue that custody decisions regarding children should be based on impersonal criteria such as income rather than any preference toward maternal care

which is where the discussion started that led to the use of a direct quote instead. Ismarc (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Messner and Williams make a very similar point: The only difference is that Messner is a bit more specific ("co-opt the liberal feminist rhetoric of gender "equality" and "rights"") whereas Williams is more general in his description ("have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement"). You have ignored the Messner source and attributed the position to Williams although Messner is still cited as a reference. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The reader of this text will not be able to tell what the conotation of those quotation marks are meant to be if you just add them around one word. Technically, to properly quote this you would need "'rights'" which is just weird. If you must have this, then a fuller quotation is necessary as ismarc has pointed out. Yhwhsks (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

At the time I made the change, I was ignorant of the full content of Messner's work, while I had studied the first section in detail, I had only done a single read through of the rest of the article. Now that I've had time to finish studying the Messner work in detail, a quote from Messner (with Williams supporting) would have been much more appropriate. WLU modified the wording here and I'm of the opinion that this better supports all related sources than a direct quote from either (though I would prefer a fully neutral wording of how they acquired the feminist rhetoric given sources have such polarized language on it). I'm supportive of the current language of the article, so I'm hopeful we've reached a resolution you find appropriate as well. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you did not read or complete reading Messner's article before you changed the sentence that was based on that source. WLU's phrasing is appropriate, yes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A "neutral" wording is one that faithfully reflects the source. People think "neutral" means "fair", or "according to the subject of the page". It does not. Please read WP:NPOV. "Neutral" on wikipedia means "proportionate to the views found in reliable sources on the subject". People think that wikipedia is like the news, with false balance and whatnot. It is not. We don't pretend the antivaccination movement has a point, we don't carefully list claims by birthers (except to refute them) and we don't pretend cold fusion has potential. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is the exact manner in which I mean "neutral". Messner uses the term co-opt to describe the usage of feminist rhetoric (with specific items being co-opted), Williams uses the term adopt but is not specific about what is being adopted of the feminist rhetoric. The current line uses the "friendlier" term adopt from Williams with the specificity of Messner. When I say I would prefer a fully neutral wording, I mean that I would like to see something that fully captures the tone and intent of all sources, something like "Men's rights activists have adopted much of the feminist rhetoric, co-opting "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing issues, such as custody, as a matter of basic civil rights." This is representative of Williams, Messner and Williams(2), I don't have access to Coltrane yet to verify that the phrasing supports that source as well. I've been reluctant to directly suggest a change to the current wording because of how strongly people seem to feel about the particular phrase when there are larger structural issues to work on in the article (which I am slowly progressing on as I study the plethora of sources already used in the article). Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Yhwhsks

To name just one example: [3]

Yhwhsks has introduced this clearly unreliable source which mentions "men's rights" exactly once: "Now, among men, I would say, broadly speaking, the conservative approaches to masculinity, particularly men's rights' activists and so on, there is the sense of anger or a sense of grievance." He has rewritten the lead based on that source and made claims which aren't supported.

Now he has changed content which is properly cited und supported by two sources, thus misrepresenting the Newton and Messner sources. He then added the unreliable source which doesn't support his claims.

In addition to that, he changed another sentence so that the text no longer matches the source. What the source says is: "The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men’s rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes." Yhwhsks wrote that, according to the source, feminists have a "dogmatic belief in patriarchy theory and male institutional power". How is that supported by the source?

I can see that Yhwhsks is a new editor with less than 50 contributions. Can one of the two administrators in charge of enforcing the terms of the community probation take a look at his behavior? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any value in using a tangential source to make a foundational statement about MRM. Yhwhsks should not have rewritten the lead section based on the www.malestudies.org transcript. Furthermore, we should never allow a misrepresentation of a source. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I find this whole section distasteful and condescending. The worth of an edit is independent of the editor or the number of previous edits he/she has made. If you have problems with any particular edit Yhwhsks has made then discuss it specifically on this page. Forming a section solely to detail your personal distaste of Yhwhsks' edits is unseemly and creates a hostile editing environment. CSDarrow (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sonicyou. Thank you for noticing me. I am flattered by your attention. First I would like you to review wp:goodfaith. I would appreciate if you would assume good faith on my part. I promise that at no point was I trying to give an inaccurate description of what the men's rights movement stands for and believes. In fact, I can promise you that nothing would make me happier than for people to have the best and most accurate understanding of the MRM as they can. Please understand that I have a great dedication to the truth and wish nothing more than for this article to be the highest quality that it can. As such I am more than willing to discuss your issues with this edit. I thank you quite fully that you have not engaged in edit warring and have sought to discuss the issue in question.

As for your first complaint, the male's studies consortium is essentially synonymous with the MRM. For example Here are three articles that discuss the head of the male studies consortium, Dr. Stephans, including mensrights.com. Clearly this man is an inspiration and leader in the mrm. He is quite famous and regularly discussed in news outlets. Work that he authorizes and puts his name to is clearly a reliable source for positions taken by the MRM. His work represents the MRM in many ways and he is often mentioned in the same sentence as the MRM.

[4], [5], [6]

For your second point, please specify exactly what text you have a problem with. I can not address this without more specific information.

That patriarchy theory is a dogma is essentially common knowledge. This is sort of like criticizing me for using grammar. In any event, I can provide several sources that use dogma in the description of patriarchy. Two of which are feminist in origin, while the third is MRM. If you need to have the MRM source included then this or one of countless others can be included. Here are the sources:

[7]

[http:// tinyurl.com/bwlcbuz] (this is a voice for men link. I want to comment that the fact that this website has been labeled spam is disgusting. And it demonstrates the feminist bias of wikipedia.)

Kate millet, sexual politics pg 114 [8]

Since dogma is bound up in the very definition, even the very existential being of patriarchy theory, I don't necessarily think a source is required on this point. However, if you insist one of the three above could be selected. Or if this is not satisfying to you, we should look for an additional one.

As a closing statement, I would like to point out that what will make this article better is not disagreements about what current sources say or do not say (though this is quite valuable in and of itself), but rather bringing this article to a state that it accurately represents and conveys the heart and soul of the MRM. The current sources listed fail to make this ideal a reality as has been pointed out on several occasions. As editors, this is what we should be trying to rectify. Knowing the positions and beliefs of the MRM is relatively easy. You can go to any related blog or website, /r/mensrights for example, and gain an understanding of the consensus towards various issues that the mrm has reached. However, like herding cats, getting sources that is acceptable to wikipedia is more difficult than talking to your average MRA. However, our goal should not be so much to dispute and delete information, but rather to find the additional sources which verify what we already know about the MRM. So in the future, I would ask that you pursue a constructive and productive stance towards this article. Our first question is "does this statement accurately represent what I know about the MRM?" If not, then it may not belong in this article. If yes, then our next question is "does this source verify this view?" Sometimes we will find that a source does not! Oh no. What should be done at this point? The answer is not delete delete delete. After all we have a good feel for the positions of the MRM and we know the statement is consistent. No, our answer is not to delete but to build. We need to find more sources, like I have done, that can improve the quality of this article, that accurately represent the MRM.

Thank you for comment CS darrow. I concur. Since I have been here, there has been a great deal of hostility that has centered around the use of logical fallacies.Yhwhsks (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was being quite clear: The source you provided does not support your claims. "Men's rights" is mentioned once ("men's rights' activists and so on, there is the sense of anger or a sense of grievance"), "patriarchy" isn't mentioned at all. That the male's studies consortium is "essentially synonymous with the MRM" is an unsourced assertion. On top of that, the source is unreliable. More importantly, you changed sourced content so that the text no longer matches the academic sources.

You are a very new editor and I would ask that you familiarize yourself with basic rules such as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:Reliable sources. I believe you have displayed a profound misunderstanding of our sourcing policies. Your attempts to substantiate your addition that "patriarchy theory is a dogma" is a textbook example. You know that the academic sources in the article say nothing of this, not even the unreliable source you provided. Despite this you wrote something about "dogmatic belief in patriarchy theory and male institutional power", thus misrepresenting the sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yhwhsks, I would not even respond to the above. If Sonicyouth has any problems with your edits he/she should address them individually in a civilised manner. CSDarrow (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I will take your advice CSDarrow. Sonicyouth, If you wish to discuss any of my edits, create a separate section and address the content of the edit only. If you can't follow wp:civ and are going to use ad hominems, I am not obligated to discuss anything with you.Yhwhsks (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Good faith" means the assumption you are not a vandal, that your intention is to improve rather than worsen the page. WP:AGF does not mean poor quality edits or sources should be tolerated. The transcript appears to be a talk given and hosted by a men's rights organization, which does not appear sufficiently reliable to be included in the page (as are many of the presented sources). Wikipedia is about what can be verified, not what is true. Whether the patriarchy is described as dogma is irrelevant to this page unless it is within the context of the men's rights movement. Any text that is not sourced can be removed by any editor and it is up to the replacing editor to find an appropriately reliable and specific source, per WP:PROVEIT. This is to avoid wikipedia being used as a publisher of original research or soapbox to promote an idea.

If the page does not adequately represent the MRM, it is incumbent on editors to present reliable sources to update the page, not mere opinion. Blogs and websites generally are not considered reliable for these purposes, certainly not independent enough to portray anything but the opinion of the website or author (who generally would not be considered adequately notable to merit noting their opinions).

Sonicyouth86's statements were perfectly civil, he politely explained why your edits were inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not have any evidence that I have vandalized the page. I would appreciate if you did not make baseless accusations. Specifically most of my edits have involved neutral reorganization. I don't believe you have been reading the same comments that I have WLU. I am not the only one who has identified Sonicyouth as being inappropriate. In fact this section is highly inappropriate and sonicyouth has regularly engaged in ad hominem.

Please explain how a talk given by a men's rights organization is not a reliable source given the context of this page. This page is meant to convey the positions and opinions of the MRM. I can not imagine a more reliable source than a talk given at a conference hosted by the MRM. This source meets both verified, not what is true and it meets wp:reliable when you consider the context of the purpose of this page.Yhwhsks (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said you had vandalized the page.

How are Sonicyouth's comments inappropriate, what policy or guideline has he broken? Pointing out that new accounts are new is not against any rule.

Please read WP:RS. That's a webpage. What scholarship, oversight and independent fact checking is present? What reputation for accuracy does malestudies.org have? How does it compare to the genuinely scholarly sources that are used throughout the page? Is it the kind of "high-quality mainstream publication" that can be used in articles about scholarly topics? Is it a news organization? You can always bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like. It's at best a representation of one men's rights organization, not all men's rights organizations, at a single conference. So really, it's one speaker's opinions. And not a scholarly conference, an advocacy conference. Not reliable in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "I am not obligated to discuss anything with you". There is no need to reply, really, as it is patently obvious that the reference you provided a) doesn't support your claims, b) probably doesn't meet our reliability standards, and, more importantly, c) was used to change reliably sourced content so that it now appears as if Messner and Newton (p. 190) say something about "gender as a social construct" (just one example) in connection with the MRM when in fact they don't. The original wording "Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on perceived disadvantages of men and what they saw as evidence of the oppression of men" was supported by both the Messner and Newton sources. You changed it so that there is a discrepancy between text and sources. This is unhelpful as is the removal of reliable sources without prior discussion (e.g., [9] note the edit summary that you deleted one reference although you deleted two, [10] note the incorrect edit summaty that Messner doesn't mention domestic violence, [11] note the edit summary that it's the same source although it isn't and covert deletion of third source), the WP:Coatrack sentences based on exceptionally poor sources, and the reinsertion of WP:SYNTH. Not to mention the attempts at rewording referenced content in a way that marginalizes the position advanced by academic sources. -Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I came up with a solution to the problem of Jerusalem and its role in the problems of the Middle East that I think might work in this article. The solution was give everyone in Jerusalem a six month warning and then drop an atomic bomb on the city. I feel that this might be what needs to happen here. Nuke the whole article and then build it back sentence by sentence, reference by reference. In Jerusalem, of course, you'd have to wait a millennium or two before rebuilding, but here we could start right away. Carptrash (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why can't someone draw attention to carptrashes abuse of wikipedia and get her banned from this page? Yhwhsks (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good lord, don't you think that your comment might be a tad bit offensive? 74.129.116.98 (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it very curious, and very telling, that at least twice now Yhwhsks has assumed that editors who disagree with his/her posts are female. Incorrectly, as it happens. Please note, Yhwhsks, this encyclopedia and this page are not the place for a battleground of the genders, and making assumptions about this is distinctly unhelpful to collegial editing. Slp1 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't turn me in for being uncivil, but, Slp1, that's a "no-brainer" - it's happened to me too. At a school yard level the three meanest slurs a guy can say to another guy is (1) "You throw like a girl" (2) you run like a girl & (3) You ARE a girl." Flash back to all the bootcamp movies you've seen where the drill sargent is shouting "COME ON GIRLS!" Some editors around here feel that calling someone a female is the worst possible insult to them (it's likely an MRM thing too), not realizing that many guys don't mind and in fact are somewhat flattered by it. Welcome to the wikipedia playground, where, boys will be boys. Carptrash (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, even if I may agree with you on certain positions regarding sources, summary and the rules, I don't agree with you including tangential and inflammatory comments that address no substantive points. Please keep it civil and on point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Any editors familiar with "The Fathers' Rights Movement" by Doyle?

Citation is: Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter. Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8 (link available 61–62 here)

This citation is in the main article, and as I slowly progress through the sources, I hit this one and through a light reading of it, I only saw reference to the Men's Rights Movement in a small section on page 61 and a mention under the Fathers' Rights Movement section on page 62. However, the Fathers Rights Movement section indicates that they are almost indistinguishable. Is the common opinion that the entire work relating to the Fathers' Rights Movement considered related to the Men's Rights Movement (because of the association drawn under the Father's Rights Movement description) or is it considered specific to the Fathers' Rights Movement? I found it curious because it's used in only one location, for a single statement, where there are multiple other sources that covers it extensively. Ismarc (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If by asking "Is the common opinion", you are asking the editors here what they feel, my reading is that the author views Fathers' Rights as being a subset of the Mens' Rights movement and as such statements about Fathers can be applied to Men when the issue at hand is fatherhood. Thank you for the link to the reference. Carptrash (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that in the source that you posted, under the Men's Rights Movement heading, it states "Here men seek to bolster Patriarchy in society, and seek to hold on to men's advanced position" while out article states that men reject the concept of patriarchy. Carptrash (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is what I meant, and I had a similar feeling about it after reading through, which is why I was asking here. I was hoping that there were some folks who were extremely familiar with the work that could weigh in, I imagine that this could become a contentious issue if it was the only source for a particular section. Ismarc (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The essay is from an explicitly Feminist perspective with the hypothesis that "fathers rights movements seek at all times to bolster the patriarchy, not challenge them" (see Methodology, page 58). In studying sources so far, this seems to be a common theme of works on the Men's Rights Movement written from a Feminist perspective, but is uncommon in works from a non-feminist perspective. Ismarc (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not surprising since one of the foundations of the Mens Rights Movement, as we currently have it, seems to be a denial that the patriarchy exists. One of the details that needs to be addressed if this article is going to survive. Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"The patriarchy," as it is used by radical feminist theorists, is a hackneyed obscurantist theoretical construct that is often used to reify some underlying paranoid, conspiratorial and victimologist worldviews. MRM writers and activists do not accept the term as it is defined by feminists. This is one of the details that needs to be addressed in this article. This article isn't titled "The MRM as defined by feminists," although that is what much of the article amounts to in its current form. This needs to be acknowledged if this article is going to survive. Memills (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as red link editors with obvious agendas keep showing up the article probably will not survive. But we will see. Perhaps the reason (one of many possibilities, I am sure) that so many feminist sources are used in the article is that it is the MRM sources that keep appearing as "hackneyed, obscurantist, paranoid, conspiratorial and victimologist"? Isn't the point of the MRM movement that men are victims? And is this not the result of a feminist conspiracy? If the cap fits, dude, wear it. Carptrash (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Many MRM activits, particularly Warren Farrell, go out of their way to point out that they accept that there are areas where women are oppressed, discriminated against, feel powerlessness and are victimized. MRM activists simply point out that there are also areas where men too are subject to unfair treatment, and where they too feel powerlessness. If we drop the "feminist" and "masculinist" conceptions of tunnel vision over-generalizations that only one sex bleeds (under the "patriarchy"), the legitimacy and need for a MRM is clear.

And if we are concerned about the suffering of all humans, then we can all embrace the label of "humanist."

Heck, throw in concerns about non-human animal suffering and, to coin a term, we become "sentientists." But I leave that for another day... Memills (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article, not to engage in some kind of "my oppression is bigger than yours" pissing contest? Reyk _YO! 21:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been warned (again) about not respecting new editors, or more correctly, for responding to the editors and not the edits. In chess players are advised to "play the board, not the opponent." Not that there are opponents here, but I will proceed accordingly and wait for my interlibrary loan books to arrive. Then, in the words of that great man, Douglas McArthur, "I shall return."

• I was talking to all involved, not just to you. Actually, these discussions have been unusually civil and and productive when compared to other discussions of gender politics I've seen on the net. I think if we keep it that way we'll end up with a very respectable article. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not feel singled out, and am content to reap what I have sown. When the cap fits me, I wear it. Some of these guys (no mention of link color) are probably arriving from a website linked to somewhere above, where Kevin, a respected, unbiased (if anything I felt he leaned towards the guys) wikipedia editor gets totally trashed for what he has posted here. Perhaps I will take what I am thinking and go post it there. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Memills is correct. Feminist views of the MRM paint a very one sided picture and their views shouldn't be presented without being attributed. This is one of the reasons the "relation to feminism" section was created. Views and statements from feminists need to be moved here, while more NPOV and men's rights views can make up the rest of the article. This is the MRM page after all Yhwhsks (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No Yhwhsks that is absolutely wrong. Segregating view points is 100% opposite to what NPOV is. I already pointed out to another editor this common misunderstanding of NPOV. Wikipedia records all views regardless of their POV. Sources don't need to neutral our record of them does. Sectioning one set of views off into a section 'for them' is not appropriate and in fact contravenes WP:NPOV. A relation to feminism section is acceptable and is very different from a section for the "Views and statements from feminists"--Cailil ^talk 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the section of NPOV is WP:STRUCTURE. We don't ghettoize criticism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with WLU and Cailil that this article will not be segregating "feminist criticism" (or similar) in a section by itself. This is a problem that many editors who critique current scholarship have faced here on Wikipedia. But the fact is that on articles such as Homeopathy, 9/11, The holocaust, AIDS, Shakespeare authorship question, Cold fusion etc we do not discount or marginalize mainstream scholarship just because some activists and editors feel that it is biased and wrong. We are an encyclopedia, summarizing the current views of the highest quality sources. If these views are wrong then the onus is on academics, researchers etc to prove the mainstream views incorrect by publishing their findings in high quality journals. Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

To return to Ismarc's original question: one of the key points to discuss is whether the fathers' rights movement is a subset of the men's rights movement (and therefore material about them useable here) or whether it should be considered a separate movement. I think several editors in the past (including myself) have operated on the former assumption, and I do believe that there are reliable sources for this.. unfortunately, I am on the road, with crappy internet and can't locate the citation for now. But I think on reflection despite this it is better to be super clean and precise and only use references that refer to the men's rights movements. This is certainly the conclusion that several of us reached in a previous discussion (which I can't find presently!). That's not to say that the Doyle article cannot be used, but only for stuff explicitly referring to the men's rights movement (rather than the FRM). Just to say that if we go this route it means that a bunch of other citations which specifically refer to the FRM in the article will need to be replaced/removed. However, I think this is to be preferred per WP:V on this, a very contentious article. Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring (2)

"Rhys Williams says that "Men's rights groups [...] have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement" has been edited in and out of the article 3 times (6 total reverts, 3 for each side) since this edit on March 9th. I see some discussion above, but if I see anymore reverts on this content, I will be sanctioning editors.--v/r - TP 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are obvious problems with the expression of an opinion as a fact and the coatracking of a weasel example in these sentences. These issues were close to resolution till a new crew of editors decided to ignore the previous discussion and indiscriminately revert. My points are there to read and clearly pertinent to the text, yet Sonicyouth et al plow ahead indiscrimately. CSDarrow (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That "these issues were close to resolution" is a pretty liberal (ohhh . . bad word) interpretation of what is going on here. In my view, the "new crew of editors" appeared because the article was in total disarray and needed/needs serious attention. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll put this plainly and clearly: I just don't care about the specifics of the article and what is supposedly true and what source says what. Unless you can find an exception under WP:EW, of which there are few, do not edit war. The 'obvious problems' just don't matter. Discussion first, consensus second, change third.--v/r - TP 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are three sources to verify this statement. Are all reliable? Are they being mis-quoted or summarized? Are there any reliable sources contradicting these points? Where are the weasel words like "some scholars think..." or "many people know..."? How is this a coatrack when it is clearly discussing the mens' rights movement? A coatrack is when a page is used to slyly criticize something not of the page; for instance, "The mens' rights movement is committed to the patriarchy, which Abraham established and we all know Abraham tried to kill his son." Since editor opinion is not adequate to overturn the opinions of sources, what source-based objections do the other editors have? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with those sentences is that they heavily imply that the rhetoric used by Men's Rights Activists is only rhetoric. The way this sentence is written "The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest" gives the strong implication that this argument from the MRM is only there to deflect the criticism, not that the argument has any merit of it's own. This pushes the POV that the MRM's argument is invalid. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a personal war against pronouns, so would like you (Kyohyi) to point out just which "those sentences" are. Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kyohyi, those weren't the questions I asked. Are the sources accurately summarized? Are there sources that rebut these points? Your opinion isn't adequate to discard, refute or criticize these sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly with sources are you looking for? I just ordered three, Messner, Newton & Wishard via intelibrary loan from my local library. it will take a week or two to get them, if ever, some stuff can't be ILLed, but if they do arrive, well then you get to decide if I am trustworthy to answer your query. Now let's see what Kyohyi has to say. Carptrash (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please also note, Kyohyi, that Coltrane & Hickman make a similar point when they describe the "rights" rhetoric as a "language of entitlement". They add that "While often veiled by a rhetoric of children's needs and gender neutrality, the more conservative men's right groups openly supported a return to patriarchal family relations." They cite quite a few examples. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the lack of clarity for the previous post. I had posted part of my argument higher on the page. The argument I am making has nothing to do with Verifiability, Reliable sources. The point I was trying to make was that the way the content is structured it gives the implication that the Men's Rights Movement are just "Rhetoric", as in no logical basis behind them. This pushes a point of view that is negative of the Men's Rights Movement, and should not be stated in Wikipedia's Voice. However, if the information is re-written to be purely descriptive. As in "The Men's Rights Movement frames their arguments for rights in a similar fashion to the feminist movement." we don't have the issue of pushing a point of view. I'm not trying to refute, or discard these sources, however we need to include this information in a way that is impartially written. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CSdarrow is right. This has been extensively discussed. This citation should either be removed or included in its entirety as an opinion of the person who wrote it. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CSdarrow is not right, when four reliable sources converge on this opinion, and there are no reliable sources that disagree, it's pretty much presented as fact and that is seen as an impartial statement. The fact that this portrays the MRM negatively is not a problem - it appears that the scholarly consensus views the MRM quite dimly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kyohyi made a very good suggestion. This statement is consistent with the source. The other wording with the scare quotes simply can't be oonveyed in a non-biased manor. Yhwhsks (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure about "in a similar fashion to the feminist movement." Is it not time for the MRM boys to stand on their own and not always be something related to or reacting against the feminist movement? Perhaps it is time to agree that the problem in finding good references for the MRM is because it is really the flat earth theory of our times. An interesting idea to be sure, but not really supportable. Carptrash (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The argument I am making has nothing to do with Verifiability, Reliable sources." Yes, and this is the problem. Your edit has nothing to do with these core content policies, but wikipedia pages are based on them. The fact that the page portrays the MRM negatively is not a problem, but if the sources were misleadingly summarized, it would be. If the sources are reliable and accurately summarized, then the discussion about those sources ends. You are free to locate and integrate sources that indicate they are inaccurate, or that opinions have changed. If you can't, if all you have to provide is your own opinion that the sources are wrong, we're pretty much done here. We don't write "impartially", we write "neutrally", which means representing things in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. If you can't accept this, you should not try to edit wikipedia. The sources appear to be quite explicit that the adoption is of rhetoric, so I think we're about done here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No the problem is that you are attempting to side step NPOV through the use of Verifiability. I am disputing how the information is shown in the article, not that the information should or should not be in the article. The way the statements are written they assert multiple things.

1. The way the Men's Rights movement frames their arguments.

2. The Men's Rights movement arguments are pure rhetoric. E.G. no basis in reality

3. The Men's Rights movement's arguments are only there for self interest.

The first part could be a neutral description of their arguments, the other two are POV. What's more, they are POV that disparages the Men's Rights Movement, and is clearly in violation of NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The sentence accurately summarises the views of multiple reliable sources and is written in such a way to respect due weight. WP does not require that the fringe views of a minority are represented in every sentence. Especially when not evidenced. Paintedxbird (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is what reliable sources say about the subject. Uncontested factual assertions made by reliable sources are stated in Wikipedia's voice. Can you present sources which contradict Williams (1995), Williams & Williams (1995), Messner (1998) and Coltrane & Hickman (1992)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New "Discrimination against the Men's Rights Movement" section

Discussed below

This section[12], it seems to me, lists a couple of incidents of protest against the MRM, but I'm not convinced these incidents are properly called "discrimination." It seems only one of the sources is available online, but that source did not mention the word "discrimination" so I'm concerned there might be some original research in the naming of the section. Is there any support for removing or renaming the section? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please propose a different name for this section. I couldn't think of anything better. Maybe "protests against the men's rights movement" or "conflict between the MRM and feminism"? The topic in this section seems a bit separate from philosophical differences with feminism immediately above it and should be separate. All three of these articles were in print newspapers. I just used the online sourcing since that is where I accessed itYhwhsks (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed any mention of the word discrimination in this section. I am open to any suggestions to what this section should be named. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to force the issue over something so trivial, but the actions of feminist protestors described in this section do fit the definition of discrimination and this is an accurate way to describe these actions. from dictionary.com:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Yhwhsks (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Thermidorian Reaction against the Men's Rights Movement has a nice scholarly sound to it, and it seems pretty appropriate. Carptrash (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Having to quote a dictionary to support an edit is usually an indication of a problematic edit. This discussion is now in two places, I suggest deferring to the below section rather than continuing this one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The section just added to the

false rape ( or something) section was not really about that, so I created a section just for it, and in fact am considering moving it up into the lede section because it seems to me that it is the best description of the MRM so far, Brilliant. Carptrash (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section in question - the title was terrible, it was a single person's opinion, I couldn't find it in the google books I had, and there was no actual link to the MRM. It looked very much like a coatrack attempt to smear the MRM through the opinions of one activist. Much as pro-MRM editors are not permitted to remove critical sources on the basis of taste, those who find the MRM distasteful are equally guilty of violating the P&G if they ignore WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COAT to make it or its members look bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote was added by Yhwhsks. I doubt that his intention was to smear the MRM, and Warren Farrell isn't just some activist but I see your point. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I checked and it was Yhwhsks who added it, and as SonicYouth says, I doubt from their other edits that they thought there was anything prejudicial about it at all. It just shows the extraordinary disconnect that is going on here. Anyway, it is in Farrell, and in fact was reprinted basically in whole in his 2008 Oxford University Press book see here for a snippet view. I do think Farrell needs to be treated as a fairly authoritative source on the views of the men's rights movement, and quite suitable as a source for their views. I'd feel much more comfortable if claimed key viewpoints of the men's rights movement are supported by multiple citations reliable sources showing that this is indeed a topic of major concern for a significant portion at least. I'm on a very slow, and intermittent, connection at present, so can't easily look, but I'd be very surprised if these weren't out there. Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't see the relevance of the quote used to this page. "X author who happens to be a MRM scholar doesn't agree with 'no means no'" is not a meaningful inclusion on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. As written it was entirely unencyclopedic. But further searches in reliable sources on the topic may find that this is a common theme of the MRM's discourse, in which case I'm sure you'd agree something brief on the subject might be worth including. But at the moment it is certainly UNDUE, I would say. Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and per WP:PROVEIT it is incumbent upon the replacing editors to locate the missing reliable sources linking this specific point to the overall MRM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)