Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

WP:Synth in the child custody section

Rgambord (talk · contribs) restored a source and added another one that does not mention the men's rights movement [1]. This is an article about the men's rights movement. If you want to add custody statistics, child custody might the place to do it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Rgambord added another source [2]: http://thomasjamesball.com/thomas-james-ball-the-mrm.html Does anyone want to argue that that source is reliable? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Collier & Sheldon doesn't mention the men's rights movement either. The only source in the section that discusses child custody in relation to the men's rights movement is the Messner source. The conference paper by Kumar (Second Annual Male Studies Conference) is a primary source and should be excluded. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and remove the passages and sources that do not discuss the men's rights movement and rewrite the section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

[3]. I also moved two sentences about men's rights rhetoric to the child custody section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

This page's second paragraph ends with an unsourced statement that "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist."

The statement is not only unsourced, it is also undefined. Significant clarification is needed to make the statement anything other than an effort to insert bias into the article and color the reader's perception of men's rights activism as a whole. The statement needs to define what it means by "some MRM groups," because the article does acknowledge in other paragraphs that the movement is made up of a variety of both formal and informal groups.

There should also be identification as to the specific group(s) which have claimed the groups in question to be "misogynist," because the credibility of the claim is dependent on who is making it. If Sally's Jones's Weekend babysitting club thinks the Men's Rights Movement is misogynist, it's not worth mentioning in the article even if you can link to their blog making the claim.

There should also be a citation for this which actually demonstrates that the entity to which the opinion is attributed actually holds that belief. The importance of that should be self-explanatory, but if it isn't, I'll point out that for months, it has been asserted by opponents of the movement that the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the men's rights movement (as a whole) a hate group, when in fact, the claim is falsely based on a single blog post labeling some out of context quotes from some individuals in a men's rights forum as "misogynist." If the statement that "some MRM groups have been described as misogynist" is based on flimsy evidence like that, then it doesn't belong in the post.

Finally, there should also be a link to a clear definition of the word misogynist, so that the reader can look and compare the evidence (the statement describing the group) to the definition with an eye toward accurate use of the term "misogynist."

If the statement cannot be attributed, clarified, and defined, then it really should be removed, because as an unsubstantiated statement, it's just petty. GloriaSass (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Gloria

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please note the conversation immediately above this section where this exact line was discussed. Feel free to continue the discussion if you have more to add, but an edit request is not the way to get it changed - once a consensus to change it has been established, there are a number of users who frequent this page who are able to do so. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note the discussion above was for the removal of the term anti-feminist from the sentence. I also made it clear I felt the whole sentence was inappropriate. I tried for the best I could because of the "consensus" system used here; some have used other terms to describe it. CSDarrow (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the original request. The current text is part of the "some people say" speak, which was famously perfected by Fox New Channel. It's used by people who want to present an offensive opinion, particularly without representative data, and don't want it attributed to themselves. At a minimum, a claim like this needs to say who makes the claim, how many of them make the claim, who the claim is made against (surely not the whole movement...). Further, if other pages are any indication, criticism hardly belongs in the opening section either. If we're being honest and fair, similarly critical claims could be written about any other minority or political groups (or the groups wouldn't need to exist). What more is there to discuss? Let's get it moved where it belongs. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, the sentence is a summary of the article contents. It does not need to be supported by a source, nor does it need to attribute the viewpoint. The article body takes care of that. The writing is a good implementation of the WP:LEAD guideline which tells how to write the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But why does that particular sentence, out of all in the article, need to be in the lede? There is a ton of material in this article. Why bubble that one sentence up, with is so problematic (especially if not to be cited), and left as a vague "some people think that some of these guys are bad" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is important and oft-commented upon, and it is negative; the only negative part of the lead section.

Are we really rehashing this argument? I thought we talked it out already, establishing the sentence's importance. It is due weight, not "undue". Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people also think blacks are lazy, eat too much fried chicken and too many water melons. I can find numerous sources supporting that. You think that should included in the African_American page in an unqualified manner? I sincerely hope not!! Merely because someone has said something does not automatically qualify it for inclusion, unless the source fairly sounded establishes its position. Also that the position is not the just the opinion of a few. This "Misogyny" statement is in the same league.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Binksternet- if you read WP:WHYCITE it says "particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." --TheTruthiness (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that the article is being canvassed off-site from reddit in mens rights, asking for a "coalition" to be formed. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1es4nf/the_wikipedia_page_calls_us_misogynist_in_the/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.161.16 (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Though I hope we still evaluate editing suggestions based on their merit alone. CSDarrow (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing is food for thought.

"Yes, Wikipedia editors can be banned for bad behavior. If we can dig up the dirt on them, we can remove biased editors. This will give us the opportunity to turn this anti-MRA article into something neutral or positive."

"the dirt?" Should be interesting. "remove biased editors" and replace them with . . . biased editors? Carptrash (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• CSD, can you say, hand on heart, that you believe that such Reddit threads are counterproductive, and that the threat of outing creates an atmosphere in which collaborative editing is rendered difficult, if not impossible? I'm not interested in arguing back and forth here about who is on which side and who is being oppressed; I just want to hear someone say "this is wrong, no matter whose side you or I are on." Regardless of your answer (since I don't want to incriminate you, or make you a spokesperson for anyone or anything), it's that kind of thing that may lead to ArbCom getting involved with this article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't ask, but I'll say it: "this is wrong, no matter whose side you or I are on". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it, Obi-Wan. Your wisdom enlightens us all. May the force be with you, especially now that school is almost out. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I am guessing I have irritated a sore spot here. I have no idea what reddit is and was merely invoking the truism that the worth of a statement of logic is independent of the speaker. My motivation is to keep this discussion on track. I will not address the rest of your comment, partly because I don't entirely follow what you are saying and also I won't indulge in the very thing I am trying to avoid. CSDarrow (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sore spot, I don't know. I have my doubts about your claim that you can't follow what I'm saying; you seem to be savvy enough in many respects. I'm trying to assume good faith and had hoped you could at least subscribe to a common-sense, basic proposition. Too bad. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede again, no citations

Editors sniping at each other. Reclosing as non-productive. KillerChihuahua 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RE:- "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist." I am not seeing anywhere in the citations anything concerning anti-feminism. What has Men Rights got to do with fighting against "equality for women". There are considerable WP:UNDUE issues here. For the record I consider the use of the Goldwag article for the SPLC as a reliable source a disgrace and an insult to Wikipedia. It is utterly shameful. CSDarrow (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC) You have a point about "anti-feminism" being inaccurate. I think the text should be changed to "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist." I disagree that Goldwag is "shameful"—I think it's a fine source. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC) A fine source? Then you'd agree to this :- "The SPLC considers the men’s rights movement and the fathers’ rights movement to be synonymous. It also says the men’s movement includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women. Also that some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women." Give me a break. Your suggested edit however is a great improvement, I suggest the change is made. Though since Misogyny is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls", I am still at a loss to see how that applies to the MRM in any significant way. CSDarrow (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I can live with that as a description of a chunk of the MRM, but if you go to any of a variety of mrm websites (I believe that part of the problem with this article is that the MRM phenomena is an internet movement and internet references rarely make the cut as wikipedia sources) the anti feminist loathing make me need to take a shower after a visit. Which is why a couple of visit is enough. Come on Darrow, what would the real Clarence make of these sniveling whimps? At best a paycheck and at worst . . ....... well you figure it out, he's your man, after all. Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Why are you whining?You're a feminist,you disagree with the viewpoint expressed in the article.Too bad.Neutrality should be front and centre not pandering to feminist sensibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.69.206 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2013‎ ```` I will make the agreed upon change to "Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist." The above is not my comment btw. CSDarrow (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I took the liberty of formatting your edit so that it is separate from the one that you are claiming distance from, something you probably know how to do but for some reason (who can understand the male mind?) chose not to. Carptrash (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, I don't mean to be continually coming down on you, but that last comment is uncalled for. Referring to the gender of a wikipedia editor - even if it is declared - in a somewhat derogatory sense is unacceptable. Can you imagine if I had said the same thing about you (and I don't even know what your gender is)? It would be insulting. Please consider striking it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I agree: uncalled for. Left a warning of sorts on the editor's talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Carptrash, between "sniveling wimps" and "male mind" I'm going to have to second the concern about your phrasing. Check your bias at the door, please, and remain civil and respectful to all, unless you really want to get sanctioned. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) If I find a source - a well respected reference, than can I use "sniveling wimps" and "male mind"? Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Not to call people "sniveling wimps" or disparage the "male mind" as incomprehensible, no. Be nice, now. KillerChihuahua 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC) And Obi, if you were to say "who can understand the carptrash mind" i would not be insulted. Actually, I'd be a lot more worried if . . . ...... wait, let me check with a nearby admin and find out if I can say this or not. Carptrash (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I just removed some remove some wierd thing that hides admin action here. That's not (opinion) a good thing. Remember, Obiwan is just very wise, not a god. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC) No you didn't: you removed the "hat" thing, which is not an administrative thingy nor does it "hide" anything. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I just removed

this:

"Contrary to claims that women are more harshly treated then men this is not the case"

from the Prison section because I see no such claim in the article. Put the claim in, reference it and then consider putting this back. Carptrash (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the new section per WP:Synth because the source doesn't mention the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what they're dealing. Perhaps if you read the debate you would see that's is the main point of it. Less WP:WL unless you think there's a better article for it to go in? Pleasetry (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It was rather tedious to read the transcript of the parliamentary debate where Philip Davies' complains about "political correctness" and the justice system but what does the debate and Davies' speech have to do with the topic of the article? Do you mean to suggest the Davies is a men's rights activist and his views are representative of the men's rights movement? Where are the sources that support this? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I feel that using the words of any politician presented in a debate, speech or anything along those lines is a very dangerous precedent. Hardly scholarly stuff. If we go there then every utterance by, say a Congressperson (to fall back to a more familiar, to me, US example) would be considered a credible source for wikipedia. All in favor of allowing that please raise your hands. Carptrash (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you his comments are backed by statistics and its context is one that fits directly under mens rights even though such words are not mentioned but then they don't need to be. Pleasetry (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the section should be removed even with its current wording as edited by Carptrash - parliamentary transcripts used in this way are OR/Synth and even attributing the quote to the individual MP and not the movement it seems like its both giving undue weight to it and extrapolating its ties to the overall Men's Rights movement beyond what was in the source. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis in the "Divorce" section

Of all the references in the "Divorce" section only the first two, Ashe and Messner, discuss the men's rights movement. Even the heavily used source Goode (1993) that was added in 2011 doesn't mention the men's rights movement. I will remove all statements based on sourced that don't mention the movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

that's not what WP:synth means. Read it again. This standard is not applied anywhere else on any other article. There is no requirement that every single source must mention the MRM. Also, your point is rather disingenuous, given this source was added when the article Was about men's rights. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edit was reverted by User:Obiwankenobi who claims that "It is perfectly acceptable to bring in material from other sources" and that "not all sources MUST mention MRM". It is quite obvious that this is the Men's rights movement article, and not the Let's add examples of what we think is unfair treatment of men article. WP:OR states that editors "must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". In addition, WP:Synth states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources that I removed were not "directly related" to the topic (as evidenced by the fact that they do not even mention the topic) and they did not support the claims that these issues have anything to do with the men's rights movement. If we go by Obiwankenobi's reasoning we would be able use sources that don't even mention Barack Obama in the Barack Obama article to advance a position that has nothing to do with Barack Obama. The sheer amount of OR in this article and the tenacity with which it is being defended is staggering. Obiwankenobi, you've made clear once before that you think that this article is about discrimination against men. I remind you again that this is not the case. This is an article about the men's rights movement. Why do you restore sources that say nothing about the men's rights movement? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The application here is to prevent this article from becoming an argument for the men's rights movement rather than being an article about the men's rights movement. You have a point in that, from time to time, certain sources may be used to provide context so that the reader will know what is the background of the topic. The prison material added by Pleasetry and removed by Sonicyouth86 was too far on the periphery, too one-sided, and too little connected to MRM. The divorce and alimony material removed by Sonicyouth86 was not connected to initiatives made by the MRM, and the MRM was not mentioned at all in the sources, or even hinted at. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's see how this works. I took a look at Feminism, and within 5 minutes found the following:

Convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination - no mention of feminism

- NOW statement of purpose - only mentions the word 'feminist' once

Story about physics, with a minor mention of women in science - no mention of feminism

Do you see how this works? Are you guys going to storm over to feminism and cleanse it of any sources that don't mention feminism? No? I didn't think so. What is stunning to me is how wikilawyering is used to continually try to make this article more disparaging and more negative. Again, there is NO restriction anywhere in any policy against using sources that don't mention the men's rights movement if they provide ancillary information that is relevant and useful to the reader or the sub-section at hand and do not synthesize new findings. Sonicyouth is just wrong, wrong, wrong, and their continued deletion of useful material just because it doesn't have the words "men's rights movement" on the same exact page is disruptive, and a classic sign of POV editing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For a discussion of the article Feminism please use Talk:Feminism in lieu of this talk page. The sources that I removed do not mention the men's rights movement, men's rights groups, men's rights advocates, men's rights activists, men's rights organizations, or anything that denotes representatives of the men's rights movement. It is very unlikely that I am wrong to suggest that sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Your accusations against me ("disruptive", "POV editing") are without substance and violate the terms of the article probation. Feel free to ask for clarification of the OR policy. It wouldn't be the first misunderstanding. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For more so-called OR and SYN, look at Women's_rights - in a quick survey, at least 20% of the sources I looked at never mentioned women's rights. And yes, you ARE WRONG to state that every single source must be directly related to the topic - the topic of the article is men's rights movement, which is a broad sweeping term comprising many different men acting in many different ways fighting for many different things - and some of those things include better treatment for prisoners. So, bringing in information about how prisoners is treated is DIRECT RELATED to the topic, even if it doesn't say at the top in flashing red letters "Men's rights movement". Sonic, why don't you just tell us what is your POV on the Men's rights movement - what do you really think? Please declare your personal POV, so at least we know where you're coming from. I will declare mine - I am neither fan nor foe, and I'd like this article to be neutral, which it's not today.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss the Women's rights article at Talk:Women's rights. Nobody has claimed that all sources need to "say at the top in flashing red letters 'Men's rights movement'" (see straw man). What the sources need to do is at least hint at what at least one important men's rights activist or men's rights organization think about this and that. For instance, if the sources discussed the National Coalition of Free Men or Warren Farrell's views on alimony, it could be argued that it is relevant information although the men's rights movement isn't mentioned and although their views aren't portrayed as representative of the entire men's rights movement. I removed sources that discuss alimony without mentioning or hinting at men's right activists or what they think about it. For some reason you appear to be very outraged, like, really outraged, by my edits and try to cast doubt on my motivation and person (see Ad hominem). I do not care in the least what your claimed and actual "personal POV" is as long as you follow our content policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Synth. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not outraged, I'm just irritated by warnings like "I will remove all statements based on sourced that don't mention the movement." which are in clear contravention to and almost farcical misreading of our policies, and I've pointed out similar sourcing issues in Feminism and Women's rights to demonstrate that other contentious articles have *not* had this so-called standard applied that you are trying to apply here - and to illustrate that if you were truly a neutral editor, you would be going to those articles to make the same edits for the same reason. But you're not, and you won't. Your personal POV is important, and you should state it here, for all to see, as it likely informs your misreading of WP:SYNTH.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"They do it on article X" is not a sufficient reason to ignore WP:NPOV (and WP:OR and WP:Synth) here. Your objections on Talk:Men's rights movement to the sourcing in other articles are becoming tedious and your Tu quoque arguments are more of the same old ad hominem approach. There is an Alimony article. This is where sources that discuss alimony belong. This article is about the men's rights movement. We need to summarize what reliable sources state about men's rights view's on alimony (or domestic violence, or child custody or any of the other "Issues"). Do you understand that? I doubt it because you demanded in the past that the article needs to prove that "gender-based discrimination exist for men" rather than reflect what reliable sources write about the men's rights movement.

This isn't confessional 101 with Pastor Dearie. You already explained your "personal POV" when you argued that discrimination on the grounds of race and sexual orientation is real (something that nobody disputed) and inferred erroneously that this is why the claims by the men's rights movement are legitimate and we should portray them as such in contradiction to the sources about the men's rights mvoement. You conveniently ignored the references provided by at least two editors that show that the men's rights movement doesn't care about those types of discrimination. Please no more soapboxing about your or other editors' opinion about the men's rights movement. If you feel that your interpretation of the OR policy is the "correct" one and that sources need not discuss the topic of the article you're free to start an RfC or a thread at WP:OR noticeboard. Alternatively, try adding a "Circumcision" section to conservatism and use sources that don't say anything about conservatism or any of its representatives and see how other editors react to your accusations of "POV editing" after they remove your addition. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sonic, let me explain again, as you're obviously not getting it. You're the one who is invoking, incorrectly, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to remove useful material - in looking at the edit history, you've done this a lot. In fact, you've repeated this mantra so many times, that you've started to believe it is true. Demonstrating that other similar articles do NOT adhere to this standard is a very easy way to demonstrate that the position you are taking here is wrong, as it is not a standard applied elsewhere. It is, in fact, *you* who needs to start that thread elsewhere. Until then, I will revert your removal of useful, sourced material.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The essay WP:OTHERSTUFF talks about how little influence is gained by referring to a problem that is seen in another article, using this as an argument for keeping the same problem in the article under discussion. I recommend against trying to restore challenged text when you do not have a clear consensus. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The information might be "useful" in the Alimony article but this isn't the alimony article or the "gender-based discrimination exist for men and alimony is one example" article. Some might also think that information about circumcision is "useful" in the Conservatism article and try to include this "useful" information by using sources that don't even mention conservatism. Sooner or later they'll have to learn not to use articles as Coatracks and that our job is to reflect reliable sources about the topic of the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy CONSENSUS has a few useful sections as well, especially this, which you might read: "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it" I am *not* claiming the other articles have a problem. I think they're likely ok. I am claiming that their use of sources, and the use of sources in almost EVERY other article that I have looked at, does not adhere to this Sonic-the-hedgehog-esque rule that every single source must mention the title of the article. Thus, CONSENSUS (which laughs at that silly OTHERSTUFF essay) is clearly demonstrated, all across the wiki, by the actions of thousands of editors, adding and deleting sources. And NONE of them that I have seen have put forth this ridiculous idea that every single source must directly address the title of the article - instead, sources are brought in to support sub-sections of articles. MRM makes claims about divorce. Neutral divorce statistics are brought in. This is completely reasonable and done ALL the time - thus stop reading otherstuff, and start reading about consensus. Sonic's threat to remove any source that doesn't directly mention MRM is frankly laughable in the face of broader consensus on this issue. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw man: "must mention the title of the article". "They do it on article X": "And NONE of them... instead, sources are brought in to support sub-sections of articles". WP:Synth: "MRM makes claims about divorce. Neutral divorce statistics are brought in." Same old, same old. By the way, there have been many attempts to use this kind of synthesis, e.g., add statistics from sources that do not mention the MRM, to advance a specific view, e.g. [4] or [5]. The editors that added the unrelated sources to the "Divorce" section probably knew that they were adding synthesis, thus their comical wording to connect the sources to the topic of the article (e.g., "there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support..."). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What someone's opinion of the topic being discussed is not important as long as wikipedia protocols are followed. For example, take your issues about Women's rights to that article. But I'll give you my opinion of the MRM. I believe it has some very legitimate issues but is largely used by angry white men who are thrilled to be able to place themselves in the victim role after watching other groups advance their causes by embracing it. I believe that many of its adherents are discouraged at seeing the long held male privileges erode away and are willing to use unfortunate plights of other men to push their victimhood to the fore. You have only to look at the falsification and misrepresentation of sources at this and other related articles to know that the editors pushing this agenda are not real men. Real men have honor and integrity and honesty and stuff like that. Does that answer your question? Carptrash (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's get back to the subject at hand, the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want to compliment the previous poster's celebration of diversity. I'm sure that "not real men" was a way of celebrating the fact that not all men are alike.William Jockusch (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. There's plenty of places to discuss the rights and wrongs of the men's rights movement: this talk page shouldn't be one of them. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Spoken like a real wo/man, Tom. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I was just noting that a good faith interpretation of the post is available. When someone uses a phrase like "not real men", that's entirely appropriate and even necessary in order to maintain civility.William Jockusch (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) "Real man" is quite a ridiculous term. God only knows what it means, when its meaning is determined completely by whose mouth it's coming from and whose ear it's directed at. "Real men have honor and integrity and honesty"--and real women don't? This isn't the time of Sir Walter Scott anymore, and I find the term itself loaded and more often than not an insult. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you Jock, for the "good faith" interpretation. Perhaps you have one for the "falsification and misrepresentation of sources" too? (to keep the discussion about what is happening in the article) And Drem, we are talking about men and not women here, and yes, my use of the phrase could easily be construed as an insult. Carptrash (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, and as a student of gender theory I take offense to it. One doesn't expect such 19th-century terminology on a 2013 talk page of a difficult topic. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Well, as a student of gender reality i find it it useful descriptive. Carptrash (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues split

Currently there are 15 sections in the "Issues" section. I find this a bit overwhelming and disorganized. I think that there are commonalities here which we could group them by. I would like to propose a "family issues" section (or something of that sort) where we can collect issues in MRM which pertain to families, be it marriage or children. Out of the topics I can see, here are the eight that appear to fit under that umbrella:

1. 2.1 Adoption
2. 2.2 Anti-dowry laws
3. 2.3 Child custody
4. 2.4 Divorce
5. 2.5 Domestic violence
6. 2.12 Parental abduction
7. 2.13 Paternity fraud
8. 2.14 Reproductive rights

As for the leftovers:

1. 2.6 Education
2. 2.7 Rape
3. 2.8 Female privilege
4. 2.9 Governmental structures
5. 2.10 Health
6. 2.11 Military conscription
7. 2.15 Social security and insurance

(plus the 'Prison' section that just got removed, would round this out to 8 as well, there were formerly 16)

These are broader issues that apply to men in general, as opposed to men in relationships, having sex, having kids, etc. These could be grouped separately, but I am not sure what to call such a grouping. Any suggestions? Ranze (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the closing sentence of the first paragraph have a legitimate purpose?

"The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]"

There are no social movements that have not been critiqued by scholars and others. There are scholars that support and develope men's rights ideas. Scholars is a very vague term. What kind of scholars? Ones dedicated to opposing the movement? Some sectors? Which sectors are we referring to, what is their importance. Are they marginal crazies or key leaders? Misogynist, though it definately has a formal meaning is becoming or has already become a weasel word to roundly condemn anyone who does not agree with feminist theory or ideology. It is a loaded and much abused word.

Might I suggest in its place a sentence like. "The Men's rights movements claims and activities are controversial inside and outside academia with strong supporters and detractors" Then followed by links to academics supporting and criticizing various aspects of men's rights.

If such an edit is considered acceptable. I will make it and source it.

Either that or move all reference to controversy and critcism to appropriate sections of the main article and stick to a general description of the MRM. That is the structure of the women's rights section and should serve as a good model for this article. Michalchik (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead please, this article is unduly sprinkled with "critics say ..." paragraphs. In fact, under every point there is such a "critics say ..." paragraph. Consolidate this into one criticism section instead. If at all. Note that the [wiki:Feminism] and [wiki:Women's_rights_movement] have hardly any such point by point criticism. Gschadow (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk archives, this issue (moving criticism into one section) has been talked to death and is against WP:NPOV. All views on a topic are recorded neutrally not pilled into a section to keep them separate--Cailil ^talk 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Misandrists", "political opponents"?

Should we start an RfC on whether it is okay to describe academic sources as "misandrists" and "political opponents"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw that earlier while I was working on those templates, and using Misandry is completely unacceptable. Feel free to remove it without further ado. "Political opponents", I have no opinion on for now since I haven't looked at the edit and its context. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need to start an RFC. We should not describe someone as a misandrist unless they have so-been described. However, "opponents" or "critics" or other such terms, when merited, are fair. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll use <joke>...</joke> next time. The point that I wanted to get across is that things seem to be so bad again that academic literature and the majority view of the MRM gets labelled as the work of "misandrists" and "political opponents" while editors argue that we can fill this article with generic statistics on rape, alimony, divorce, sentencing, dowry laws etc. We do not try to undercut the credibility of (critical or supportive) sources, especially if they were written by academics as is the case here. We do not do it in this article and we do not do it in articles on movements that are viewed critically, e.g., creationism etc. Meainwhile, the biased wording introduced by the now blocked William Jockusch is still in the article and the part that he removed is still missing. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jock is gone? Oh well, Another man bites the dust Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I find the above post to be misandrist. I request that you change it. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined

to remove the Draft evasion link from the "See also" section because . . . . .... why is it there? The article linked has no, that I could find in a quick scan, mention of the Men's rights movement or of gender at all. Any thoughts about keeping it? Carptrash (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until it can be completely rewritten in light of a notional source that discusses how the MRM approaches this issue. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes the link seems fairly odd. We already mention conscription. The fact that governments will generally punish people who illegally avoid conscription and that there are various ways to avoid it, both legal and illegal depending on the country is mentioned in our article on conscription which has a link to that article and there's no need to go into much detail on that here. The only case where it would seem relevant is if it's suggested that in some places where there is conscription for both sexes, it's harder to avoid it if your male or if you get punished more severely or whatever, and that would need a source linking it to the MRM. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed prison section

The following section removed by Dominus just now under accusation of WP:Synthesis:

===Prison===
British MP Philip Davies stated that contrary to claims that women are more harshly treated then men this is not the case in the United Kingdom where the majority of prisoners are men and they are treated more harshly on the whole.

“The published statistics show that a higher proportion of men are given a sentence of immediate custody than women, irrespective of age of offender (juveniles, young adults or adult) and type of court (magistrates or Crown). This has been the case in each year between 1999 and 2009...For each offence group, a higher proportion of males are sentenced to custody than females...In 2009 58% of male offenders who entered a guilty plea for an indictable offence were given an immediate custodial sentence compared to only 34% of women.” <ref>{{cite web |title= Sentencing (Female Offenders) |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121016/halltext/121016h0001.htm |date=16 October 2012 }}</ref> - - I think this may have been done too hastily. This section clearly supports a specific viewpoint, and even if the term "men's rights movement" was not use specifically in the reference, I don't think that makes it unrelated to the topic, nor do I think it "advances a position" (which is what synthesis is) if it is simply reporting facts, that MP Davies made this statement.

Coming to defense of the reality of men's suffering is de facto men's rights activism, and I believe it is worth posting this topic here so we can ask: has MRA responded to this? Do they point this out? If so, that could be sourced and used in conjunction with the section to make it applicable to the article. Ranze (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my problem with the blanket reverts. There is an essay somewhere about "dont just revert" - the point being, try to improve, rather than just delete material that bugs you. I think we are missing a "prison" section, so let's create one together, starting with sources about what MRM says about prison and what advocacy they've done in this regard, and then bring in what the critics say, and then bring in neutral data from other sources. None of that is SYN, that is called building an encyclopedia article, which is by definition a hodge-podge of many sources put together - the key is to not draw a new conclusion, but adding one source after another, no matter if they reference the global topic at hand (as long as they're relevant to the "local" topic, is perfectly legitimate. No policy-based argument nor demonstration of similar wikilawyering in other articles has been mooted to show why this is not allowed. All of this also convinces me more and more that we need a "men's rights" article - as that is indeed a much broader topic, and I think some of this wikilawyering was behind the move to this new title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree about the move being the bad idea. "Men's rights" is clearly a broader topic. I feel like the addition of "activism" or "movement" is a means by which to exclude anything not including those words. By that logic a "league for men's rights" (as news indicates existed) is not "on topic" because the word "league" is neither "activism" or "movement" even though it is clearly that.

Part of the difficulty in constructing sections here is asking "what group/person would qualify as MRA?" in terms of what statements being applicable for inclusion. Wikipedia does describe present-day feminism situations (just look at the Feminist Frequency article) based purely on newspaper coverage, yet for some reason we are only supposed to talk about MRA stuff not merely if it's in a newspaper, but if the papers are covered in subsequent academic journals, which is quite a ridiculous double standard meant to squelch that information I assume. Ranze (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It pains me to admit it but I agree with Ranze on some of this. I missed just why the Prison section was removed. On the other hand it is music to my ears to hear guys complaining about a "double standard" after a few weeks of it after cramming one down everyone's throats for several thousand years. But the issue about Men's rights versus Men's rights movement versus how ever this topic is named is the one about sources. As soon as an article such as this gets created a plague of red linkers show up and start quoting blogs and newsletters and all sorts of unusable sources. I suggest that folks who wish to do so start an article on someone's user page and do whatever seems to cover the topic and then publish it. In my opinion what men need to do is take a hard, honest look at where their suffering is coming from because I totally believe that they will come to recognize that it is not from feminists but from other men who profit from those sufferings. Carptrash (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Slp1 just re-added the prison section with some good cites. Thanks. Now, I don't think it would be synth if we pulled in additional info/statistics, especially if those same stats were cited by MRM or their opponents. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OWK, this dichotomy you keep referencing between men's rights and "their opponents" is distinctly unhelpful, battlegroundy, and unencyclopedic. Please stop. It is not how we write this encyclopedia: we find the best sources about a topic and summarize them. So, yes, it would be probably be okay to add a limited amount of primary sourced material from men's rights websites on this subject. Even better would be to add material from secondary sources which summarize men's rights views and arguments. What we must not to is to add statistics/information from other websites, such as the text that was previously included here or similar, which individual editors believe are related to men's rights and the men's rights movement. That would be original research and synthesis, as it is attempting to prove a point not made in the original source. Stick to material cited by the MRM and preferably those writing about them in reliable sources, and you will be fine. Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thanking you for your good contribution, and you call me battlegroundy. Take it easy there, it's just an article, and we're all doing our best to improve the wiki. My point was, if MRM says "prisoners in 50 states are X", there would be no issue IMHO with bringing in the data source the MRM mention and pointing readers to it; the same holds for data sources mentioned by "critics" (I don't know why you hate the term opponents, it's widely used in many articles and in many domains, but whatever) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not add statistics on dowry death, rape by gender, alimony etc. because the pages dowry death, rape statistics, alimony exist and the continued attempts to turn this article into a WP:Coatrack for these issues need to stop. This is the article about the men's rights movement and we write this article based on reliable, preferably scholarly, sources about the men's rights movement and their views and actions regarding dowry deaths, rape, alimony and all the other issues. Sigh, no, Slp1 did not call you "battlegroundy". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mens rights directs to this article so should be treated as such or we can just change the pages title instead. Pleasetry (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of SPLC section and material in the lead.

(edit: This whole argument below still holds if "SPLC" is replaced with "person or persons responsible for the sources") CSDarrow (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

For a source to be used in the lead or have a section devoted to it alone, it should be significantly notable and the comments significantly satisfy WP:UNDUE. The SPLC [6] may be respected on many matters, but they also have received criticism and their opinions should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Due to bias and topic ignorance the SPLC are not notable independent commentators on the Men's Rights or allied movements. Moreover the points they make fail WP:UNDUE . The sources in question are [7] [8] [9].

As such I feel the SPLC material in the lead and the Criticism Section [10] should be removed. They are no more notable than any other critics. Unless cogent counter argument can be presented I will do just that. My expanded reasons are as follows:-

(1) Notability

Due to bias and ignorance of the topic, the SPLC are not notable commentators on the Men's Rights or allied movements.

The sourcess show both ignorance of the topic, eg Conflating Men's & Fathers rights,

• "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals."

and obvious bias in language e.g. phrases like

• " Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women. Others, who have internalized Christian “headship” doctrine, are desperately seeking the “submissive” women such doctrine celebrates"

• "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists..."

• The citation [11] contains the word "Manosphere" in the URL, which is a pejorative for the MRM. The term is used repeatedly in [12].

• "Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped."

Irrespective of what you think of Register-Her.com every woman listed as "lying about" has in fact been convicted of that exact crime. The Tarrant reference includes inaccuracies and clearly partisan language

• "The aggressively hostile misogynist strategies of so-called Men's Rights and Fathers' Rights Activists are serious enough that the [SPLC] has included these groups in their expose on American hate groups."

(2) Undue Weight

The violations of WP:UNDUE of these entries are many. However, together these alone are sufficient. imo.

• The commentary refers to the N. America alone.

• Their views are not notability on the subject. (see above)

• They are referring to fringe elements, ie see "aimed at the hardline fringe", here [13].

• They have not defined or demonstrated Misogyny. Let alone shown it is repeated and long term behavior. They are using the word as a pejorative.

Summary The SPLC's opinions are being presented as if they carry special weight; as they might with regards to other issues. The SPLC has demonstrated they are both partisan and not well informed on Men's Right issues. As such they are not an objective or respected independent voice on this matter. The SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics by having content in the lead or a section devoted to them. Especially when WP:UNDUE is considered. CSDarrow (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Not only is this a violation of NPOV, but your characterization of the criticism is in error. Goldwag is an expert on organized hate and extremist groups. He does not speak for or represent the SPLC and he needs to be attributed correctly per our best practices on attributing sources. Your threat to remove the material appears to be bordering on intentional disruption, and your tendentious use of this talk page and the noticeboards to push your singular POV has run afoul of our policies and guidelines. My best recommendation is that you should remove this article from your watchlist and stop editing it immediately. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As you well know RSN has firmly declared that the Goldwag was speaking for the SPLC, [14]. Similarly if Goldwag is an expert in organized hate and extremist groups, why should his opinions on Men's Rights be of note. Especially as he does not know the difference between the Men Rights Movement and Fathers Rights Movement. ::: CSDarrow (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, RSN has "declared" nothing of the sort. RSN is an informal gathering of amateurs who show up to help editors with questions. They make no official pronouncements nor do they guarantee accuracy of any kind. You asked a loaded question in bad faith on the noticeboard, a question that RSN is not equipped to deal with. You did this in order to game this article and provide a false justification for removing the content. This is a very common tactic with POV pushers, so if you think you were being clever or original you can forget it. We've seen this dozens of times before you ever showed up, so think again. On Wikipedia, we attribute expert sources by author and publication, in this case "Arthur Goldwag" of the "Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report" or of the "Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog", depending on which source you are citing. Goldwag does not work for the SPLC nor is he a fellow or an employee. Goldwag is a journalist and author who specializes in organized hate and extremist groups and his notability exists completely independently of the SPLC and in fact, has no connection to it. We cite him as an expert and we cite the publication. We do not in any way speculate if he speaks for the SPLC as such questions are outside the remit of our role as editors. What we do is insure the most accurate attribution possible and that's the extent of our role. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation for this [15]. CSDarrow (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is obvious. If you continue to disrupt this article and any other noticeboards to push your POV, I'll have no choice to file a report. Again, if you think you are being clever by trying to game the system to align with your fringe POV you are a little late. We've seen editors do this many times and they've all been topic banned and/or blocked. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling sysop comment Let me just throw this out here: If I were to have to make a determination on whether a particular user were editing against a consensus, I would come to the conclusion that the discussion at WP:RSN received insufficient input and failed to reach a consensus among disinterested parties and RSN regulars because the discussion was dominated by the parties already involved here.--v/r - TP 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

TP, All of the uninvolved editors, ie little green rosetta, GRuban, Fladrif, where pretty emphatic it was the SPLC not Goldwag. They produced well argued cases, especially GRuban. I does not matter to me who it is, the SPLC, Goldwag or some incorporeal combination. I just wanted to know who I need to address. If it is Goldwag or a combination I would say the case for removal from the lead is even stronger. You can take my whole argument and replace "SPLC" with "person or persons" and it still holds.CSDarrow (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Except, that is completely wrong (Goldwag is a writer who was published by the SPLC due to his expertise—he does not work for nor does he represent the SPLC) and it's not how we attribute sources. For someone as "experienced" as GRuban claims to be, he seems to be completely unaware of one of our most important content guidelines and NPOV policies which direct us to carefully attribute opinions in the text to particular sources and to avoid neutrality violations while using in-text attribution. GRuban isn't just wrong, he's ignoring our policies and guidelines. As editors we don't do guesswork as to who is speaking for whom, we default to simply citing who said what (the author) and noting the source where it was published (the publication). I'm not sure what kind of game GRuban is playing, but he exceeded the remit of editorial responsibility. What we do is insure the most accurate attribution possible and that's the extent of our role. We don't spend time guessing who the author might be speaking for or whether he's representing someone other than himself. The general rule that applies across the board is to use the form "topic T has been described by author A in source S as opinion O." Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified support- I do agree that the views of an advocacy organization focusing on the United States are not prominent or global enough to be given pride of place in the lead, but I do not agree that they should be removed altogether. I'm also not a fan of CSDarrow's histrionics. As I understand it, DSDarrow feels that the article seems to be written by, and sourced to, the MRM's ideological opponents, who then describe the MRM in unflattering and dishonest ways. Meanwhile, sources that do not condemn the MRM are excluded on one pretext or another. I have some sympathy for that point of view- I think it is important to ensure the article does not become a hatchet job. It has been in the past and, without vigilance, will be again. That doesn't mean I like all the yelling and carrying on CSDarrow has been doing. However, trying to get a person to leave with bullying and threats because they loudly and obnoxiously hold a contrary view is probably not a good thing. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reyk, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am not attempting to censor the critics of the MRM. What I am claiming is that the SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics. They are not an objective or respected independent voice on this matter; as they might be on other issues. As such they do not deserve placement in the lead or a section all to themselves. I don't think this is unreasonable or histrionic. Your qualified support is appreciated. CSDarrow (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Goldwag does not work for any advocacy organization. He's an expert on organized hate and extremist groups who works as an author and journalist. The SPLC published his article in their magazine and another on their blog. His notability in this area comes from publishing many different articles and books, none of which have anything to do with the SPLC. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support - for the reasons I, and others, have noted (especially notability and WP:LABEL). And, by the way, let me commend CSDarrow (talk) for persevering here, and in supporting WP policies here, despite ad hominems, bullying, and threats by those pushing an anti-MRM POV. Memills (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Manipulating noticeboards in order to create a false consensus to support a false rationale for removing content in violation of the NPOV is topic ban worthy and/or blockable. That's the kind of disruption you are supporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - given that the SPLC names specific groups I'd have no problem with this not being in the lede. However it should be in the body. That said there should not be a criticisms section - all of that information should be merged into the body of the article where relevant.
  Furthermore, TP is correct RE: the RSN thread[16] - it was down in my view to a good faith error on CSDarrow's part in the way he formulated the thread. It would be better to wait and allow more time for outsiders to have input there with a streamlined discussion *before* declaring consensus one way or the other--Cailil ^talk 18:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not my evaluation. The un-involved editor GRuban, who seems an experienced notice board contributor, uses the phrase "...the evident consensus (as Wikipedia defines the term) reached here..". The RSN case has nothing to do with the discussion here, it was in a passing comment made to Viriditas. CSDarrow (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• What Cailil says. I'm not a big fan of citing SPLC and other such advocacy groups in the lead (it lends their statements undue weight), though the article certainly needs to include it, and the lead needs a general statement on "controversy" or whatever it's to be called. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the criticism in question can be found in many reliable sources and is quite common in the literature. Goldwag does not work for nor speak for the SPLC, so this red herring that he does needs to put to rest. In other words, even if you eliminated Goldwag and the SPLC, the criticism is still mainstream. For example, the criticism that the MRM is misogynistic is found in many published works. This campaign to attack Goldwag or the SPLC is an intentional distraction. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Many reliable sources discuss the men's rights movement in connection to misogyny. Clatterbaugh's Contemporary perspectives on masculinity, for example, states "Woman hating is pervasive among men's rights advocates" (p. 88) and "The men's rights perspective, for all its talk about equality and destroying traditional roles, often seems to have taken an antifeminist and even misogynist backlash stance. It frequently conflates 'feminist' with 'woman', and expresses hatred of both" (p. 77). Clatterbaugh cites authors like Richard Doyle and gives specific examples. Other sources include Theorizing masculinities (p. 162) or [17], [18], [19], [20] and so forth.
  I agree with Cailil that a separate criticisms section is bad form and that criticisms should be included in the body of the article where they are most relevant. The question is where do we put global critiques like the one by the SPLC and the sources I mentioned? I also agree with Drmies that a summary of the criticisms should be mentioned in the lead. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (op). The point being discussed here is that the SPLC's opinions are being presented as if they carry special weight; as they do with regards to other issues. For the reasons I have stated above, I feel the SPLC should not be given special status over any other critics by having content in the lead, or a section devoted to them. Especially when WP:UNDUE is considered. If people wish to discuss other matters then please start another section. Keeping things focused and on track will ultimately be more productive. CSDarrow (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please don't be patronizing. You may have noticed (see the thread below also) that's not simply one little thing--note the "organic whole" comment in the linked section on "criticism". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (op) I would further posit that the citations from the SPLC are so ill informed and so partisan, that their opinions on Men's Rights are of no worth. Apart from in support of the fact they have made statements with the aforementioned properties. CSDarrow (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel all interested parties have had time to contribute to this discussion. I think the SPLC material is patently in violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. No full consensus will be ever reached on this issue, as such i am invoking WP:BOLD and removing the material from the lead. I will remove the other material in 24hrs. If there is strong disagreement then we will require outside arbitration. CSDarrow (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry CSDarrow I object both to your declaration that the SPLC is not a reliable source - this is not the determination at the RSN board. There has *not* been a discussion about that. You did not ask about the reliability of the SPLC at RSN you asked to whom the remarks should be attributed. There is no basis for your determination of the SPLC's reliability either there at RSN or here in teh above. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove material--Cailil ^talk 15:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In which case I will prepare the submission for the appropriate noticeboard, all here will invited to respond. I am assuming you feel the SPLC material also satisfies WP:UNDUE. (Just out of interest, how are you connecting my recent RSN submission to this issue? They have nothing to do with each other.) CSDarrow (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, my agreement above with the removal from the lede is ONLY because the SPLC name specific organizations in their material. There would nothing wrong with removing the material in the lede for that reason - if there is consensus for it (which there might be if the process is given appropriate time). On the other hand, attempting to use the above discussion to declare the SPLC as unreliable is unacceptable. You raise the issue of reliability - you state that is a reason to remove but you haven't actually tested it. People here have not responded to it. And no the issue doesn't require outside "arbitration". We have uninvolved sysops patrolling here and a probation to keep editing within policy. The various mechanisms of dispute resolution (the boards etc) wont be used to create a different rules for this or any other article. Just stick to the consensus process that you opened above which is not yet complete - this thread is only 50 hours old, it should be given at least a week! And furthermore you (the person who opened the discussion) should not be closing the thread and declaring an outcome - ask one of the sysops to do that--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify your position on the SPLC material in the Criticism section [21]. I should also remind you of the 5th pillar of Wikipedia's WP:FIVE Pillars. I don't care what reasons the present SPLC material is removed for, so long as it is removed. I am not trying to set broader precedents that others may find distasteful. I profoundly disagree with you on the need for outside help is resolving this. CSDarrow (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow it is very clear that you want the material removed - but that's your issue not wikipedia's. We do have firm rules when it comes to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - they are non-negotiable (see the policy pages). A new standard for WP:RS will not be introduced here or elsewhere. My position above re: the criticism section is quite clear. The SPLC information is important and should be included in the article. However as is pointed out below in another thread the whole structure of this article needs revision inorder to come into line with NPOV - forking material off into a separate section violates NPOV.
Re: this discussion you need to allow other people have input into this 2 day old thread. You need to allow outsiders have the space to comment in order for a consensus to develop. Continually rebutting the answers to the question asked is not helpful in forming consensus, nor is your attempt at early closure - give it time. As I said above, you asked the question - it's not up to you to determine the outcome is. That should be done by someone who does not have an interest in the question (i.e someone who does not want the material kept or removed - i.e an uninvolved sysop). In short give it time--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cailil is correct in preventing any future reference to this discussion as pertains the reliability of SPLC as a source. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, Your post reinforces my opinion that this discussion has reached an impasse and we need the help of at least RSN. My guess is the SPLC sources will not fair well when exposed to the scrutiny of those at RSN. CSDarrow (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is incredibly clear from this discussion and that at the RSN that the SPLC material is both reliable and notable. Those speaking specifically in favour of this position, that the material should be included, in the body of the article at the least, are Viridatis, Reyk, Cailil, DrMies, SonicYouth86 and myself here, and GRuban made a similar comment about notability at RSN. In this thread and at RSN, the only person opposing the inclusion of the material anywhere this is you. It seems that by far the majority of editors agree that the material should stay in the body of the article. Just not in the lead.Slp1 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, Ad populum makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The reliability and noteworthiness of the SPLC is without a doubt, and no amount of rhetorizing will change that. You seem to want more out of this RfC than you asked for, and that won't happen. You may have consensus for its removal from the lead--but you should not be the one to decide on that since you started this. You are welcome to file at WP:RSN, but you'll be surprised at the result, no doubt. Now, since I was a participant in this discussion I won't lay an ArbCom-approved sanction on you, but an admin who wasn't involved in the discussion may--not just because of your a. premature closure of discussion (which is not at an impasse at all) and b. your edit to the article based on your conclusion, but mostly because c. you draw highly tendentious and incorrect conclusions from this discussion: your statement that "the SPLC material is patently in violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE" is entirely false, based on this discussion. In other words, you are again violating the terms of the article probation with your disruption. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a notice on WP:AN for an(other) admin to look into this. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, Clarification. Are you speaking to me as an Admin? CSDarrow (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I see a pretty obvious attempt at creating a false impression that consensus here is not to include the SPLC and Goldwag sources, which are certainly reliable by our policies. I'm having a very difficult time assuming good faith here, and I agree that CSDarrow's involvement has been disruptive. Whether the material is explcitly mentioned in the lede or summarized generically there is a question of weight. I believe that the opinions of the SPLC and Goldwag are weighty enough to be mentioned specifically there, though I would settle for a clear and neutral summary of the controversy. I strongly disagree that they should be removed from the article or buried deep down in a ghettoized criticism section. They are weighty enough and supported by enough other reliable sources to be prominently mentioned in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' per the same reasons given by others.--JasonMacker (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand on that?

• Oppose WP:RSN would quickly explain that the source is satisfactory for this topic. Pro-tip: Never start an analysis with "Due to bias and ignorance of the topic". Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't even know the name of Notice Board this was posted to or the one you posted in. CSDarrow (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly told here and in NPOV that there is a consensus to remove the material from lede. In fact I have been severely scolded for not realizing that fact. In the spirit of this consensus I will hence remove the material CSDarrow (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You were repeatedly scolded at WP:NPOVN for forum-shopping and for beating a dead horse, not for failing to realize that some notional settlement had concluded in your favor. The SPLC is a solid research organization and their identification of certain groups as misogynistic is valid. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh so there isn't a consensus, lol. I wonder what historians are going to say in 50yrs or a 100yrs time when they read this thread? CSDarrow (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, per WP:LEDE the Lead paragraph needs to summarize the article. Since there are plenty of criticisms of the movement in the article, these need to be reflected in the Lede. There is absolutely no consensus for a criticism-free lede (nor would it be in keeping with WP's policies and guidelines) but a fair number of editors do seem to agree that the current formulation, with the SPLC material front and centre of critical material in the lede may well be giving WP:UNDUE weight to it. If you want to improve the article as quickly as possible then do what I suggested at the WP:NPOVN: propose a couple of sentences to summarize the critical commentary of the movement that could be used to replace the SPLC material. I (or other editors) can also give it a shot when we have time, but my guess is it is more likely that you will be happier with the result if you propose something. Slp1 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment from user:blueboar over in NPOV Noticeboard makes sense to me

• " as I stated above, the lede should be generalized. While it is fine for the lede to say that the Men's rights movement has engendered criticism, it is inappropriate to highlight specific criticisms in the lede. Save the specifics for somewhere later in the article."

Making a specific critical point in the lede simply does not make sense to me. Especially imo from a lousy source. A simple statement that the MRM has garnered criticism from some quarters is appropriate and unarguably correct. If you want to do this fairly then you will get my support.

The MRM has garnered a lot of criticism from some quarters, of that there is absolutely no doubt, and this is a point of interest to a lede imo. I think it is of note that a large proportion of this criticism has come from certain quarters. I also think much of the criticism has come from those who hold opposing views, and not simply disinterested parties. I will throw the first iteration out

• The Men's Rights Movement has garnered criticism, in particular from pro-Feminist commentators. (or words to that effect)

With the sentence supported by appropriate citations. Some of the citations I see used on this page are simply awful. I am sure there are libraries full of first rate citations from reasoned, possibly highly critical, authors to support this statement. This is just a first stab.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the need for criticism in the lead, and for making a first stab at something to include. It is a start, but to be honest I don't think it really fits the bill. As you will see from WP:LEAD, this paragraph is supposed to summarize the content of the article not introduce new points. I don't see anywhere in the article that criticism has come "in particular from pro-Feminist commentators", and would need some very solid sources to justify its inclusion in the body of the article, let alone the lead. The first step needs to be finding those sources that you feel are out there.

However, in any case, and based on what I know, the statement is not accurate or even helpful. It is a trueism that "criticism has come from those who hold opposing views" as you put it. That's the nature of criticism, no? Additional, if a movement is set up in opposition to another movement (as the MRM has been set up in opposition to feminism) then in one sense all those who critique the movement are pro-feminist.

Until some solid sources are available for this proposed edit, we need to focus on what is actually in the article. Looking quickly at the article, the major criticisms I see at the moment are:

• Academics criticizing the conclusions drawn from research by MRA on domestic violence and paternity fraud issues.
• ... critiquing educational approaches recommended by MRM for boys as failing to recognize the heterogeneity of boys and their educational needs
• ....critiquing the MRM for not recognizing the cost to men's health of traditional perspectives and expectations of masculinity.
• .... and there is the charge of misogeny too, which a number of people seem to think should be in the lead - though hopefully they would be satisfied with something minimal.

This is what needs to be summarized in a couple of sentences. Do you want to give it another stab? Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. With this reversion I restored the bit about SPLC to the lead section, in accordance with arguments expressed here. I consider it vitally important to the topic for the MRM to be connected in the lead section to the assertions made by SPLC further down in the article body. This includes the word "misogynist" which has been the subject of edit warring. We should be closely following the WP:LEAD guideline which advises us to summarize important article points in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal. In addition to the POV problems discussed at length above, a bunch of complaints in academic sources do not make the accusation notable. Furthermore, describing entire sectors of a movement as misogynist is downright sexist; could an article on WRM state that "sectors of the WRM are misandrist?" Or what if we specified the sector -- saying, for example, "women's studies departments create a hostile environment for male students." Obviously, the material is a violation of WP:LABEL. Lastly, the writing in this sentence is just terrible.William Jockusch (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This section

This section is forum shopping and borderline disruption, on an article on probation. I'm not going to sanction CSDarrow at this time, as I'm a bit late to the party and it appears that editors are trying to make this a useful discussion. However, I wish for editor feedback: Do any editors here feel this is a non-helpful section, which is preventing or slowing discussion of improvement of the article? CSDarrow, if you respond, you will be brief or you will receive sanctions. No long winded diatribes. That goes for everyone else too - brevity is the soul of wit... verbosity leads to sanctions. KillerChihuahua 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of forum shopping I suggest you research carefully what my posts here and to forums have been. Your accusation is serious and do so again, Admin or not, I will make a complaint to WP:ANI. CSDarrow (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

TBH KC it's not just this section its the use of other fora in combination with it. This has decentralized discussion, derailed the above consensus, obfuscated the issue and forced us all back over points that have already been discussed. The current NPOVN discussion has no consensus and is going round in circles and the RSN thread didn't get enough outside input. The truth is that ALL of these threads are holding up the real issue - the fact that the current article violates WP:STRUCTURE and needs to be rewritten around mainstream third part reliably sourced material on the movement, and not be a laundry list of its issues--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have itemized the other discussions rather than simply saying "Forum" - thanks for taking the time. That said, is this section currently helpful or no? It sounds like you feel it is not just forum, but also taking time away from working on the article to chase at abstractions which are not applicable. KillerChihuahua 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this section is really a problem, but the whole pattern of editing this whole topic is. I personally am sick to death of the whole thing. I have to hand a stack of good books and references for much the article, but unsurprisingly tend to find I have better things to do with my life than to engage in a massive timesink of doing the research for a section only to have to defend material that doesn't conform to other editors' personal conception of the men's rights movement, or is in any way critical. And I don't think I am the only one, whose editing is stifled by the atmosphere here. I note that SonicYouth has actually produced a bunch of very reliable scholarly sources also talking about the misogynistic sectors of the movement, so actually we don't have to argue about giving undue weight of the SPLC anymore, since there are lots of sources making the same point. But who wants to include this material and risk starting the next war of words, personal attacks, edit warring etc. I personally wonder if it would be good to go to ArbCom, at minimum to see if they think that turning the community sanctions into ArbCom ones would help. I think it would, as at least there would be a great forum (WP:AE) to take specific issues to, and we would not be relying on KC and TP to be around and up to speed. Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "misogyny" slur does not exactly promote diversity. If someone accused you of being sexist, you might take exception, too.William Jockusch (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting a weasel to rest--no, two for the price of one

"Some MRM groups have been described as misogynist" could, conceivable, be called weaselish, but as WP:WEASEL indicates such an evaluation needs to be made in context. First of all, the statement is in the lead, which means it doesn't require citations right there as long as it is supported in the article; see WP:CITELEAD. Second, then, the question is whether it's verified in the article, and it seems to be. I'll cite from WEASEL: " However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold in the source). And more specifically in this case, since the statement is in the lead, "The examples given above ["some people say, many scholars state", etc.] are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." I hope that puts this matter to rest.

Now, the article is still tagged for weasel words. I don't know who put it there (which camp, boy or girl or transgender, etc.), but I see no specific "weasel-inline" tags in the article. The only weasel-discussion on this talk page pertains to the word "perceived", a matter laid to rest (in this admin's opinion--I look at that discussion as a kind of RfC) by such users as Binksternet, Reyk, WLU, Mathsci, and Dominus Vobisdu, with recourse to the literature. That is, the sources, according to that discussion, bear out that the word is used properly; subsequent rebuttals by two users don't address, for instance, the detailed analysis of Binksternet. So, I'm going to have a look at the history of that tag and its dating; if it's related to the word "perceived", I will remove it. The next time someone wants to add it (whichever side they're on etc. etc.), they should start a new discussion here with a detailed analysis of the specific offending term before a general tag applying to the entire article without specifying the problem is faced. It's ironic, I suppose, that a weasel tag without such specification is weaselish ("some editors think that some terms in this article are weaselish"). Drmies (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I have reverted this edit. In context, this is drive-by tagging, from an account with 40 edits who didn't seem fit to take this up on the talk page (and hasn't ever edited this article or the talk page besides that one time). I note that since that edit CSDArrow has removed a few other words citing "weasel" in the edit summary; I have no opinion on those edits since I haven't looked at them--but their edits suggest that if there were more weasel words (perceived weasel words, haha) than "perceived" they've been taken care of. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The particular wording was put in place here by CSDarrow, which IMO made it more weaselish. The previous wording of "The MRM's anti-feminism has led to sectors of the movement being described as misogynist" seems more precise. I also dislike Darrow's removal of the term academic in several places, stating it is "weaselish". In this case the remarks are attributed to Michael Messner, who is a sociologist, and Michael Flood, who is also a sociologist, both holding university professorships. The other citation is to Men and Masculinities, published by Open University Press and authored by Christian Haywood, Máirtı́n Mac an Ghaill. Both are employed by the Department of Education at the University of Newcastle. In fact, in all three cases there were multiple citations to attached to the sentence where "academic" was removed. In every case I looked into, the citations were to peer-reviewed journals or university/scholarly press. So these appear to be statements made by academics.

The issue at hand seems to be that CSDarrow wants to undercut the credibility of criticisms. Further, proponents of the MRM want to see an article free of criticisms like "misogyny". In neither case does there appear to be an appreciation that a) there is considerable, possibly majority scholarly criticism of the MRM for, among other things, misogyny and b) our policy on neutrality requires us to reflect this. I would support a return to this version of the page (diff) bar two changes - leave out the {{who}} and {{clarify}} tags, and replace "Men's rights writer Christina Hoff Sommers..." with "Equity feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WLU, I don't wish to argue that the one is more or less weaselish than the other. It seems to me that the general spirit of the remark is verified sufficiently; if you wish to be bold and revert/change, I have no objection. If you do, I'd ask you to (here's the pedant speaking) place a brief note in a separate section so this one doesn't bloat to Gargantuan proportions. Similar with academic: note that I didn't endorse or criticize CSDArrow's removals--I just used them to make the point that if anything the tag was less valid than it was before. Sometimes "academic" is appropriate, sometimes it is not; in general I wouldn't dispute its validity, but again, do that with a (brief) separate comment, and same for the tags. I may sound like a bureaucrat (maybe I am), but this talk page currently contains a ton of sections that mix all kinds of material and commentary, and smaller separate sections make for more manageable discussions, forcing editors to stay on point. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoff Summers is a highly accomplished academic. Her viewpoint is to be exposed but profeminist academics are to have theirs obscured? Is that want you are suggesting WLU? It is misleading the reader to use the title academic alone as it suggests an arms length and expert viewpoint, when in fact the writer is a member of a school of thought strongly at odds with those being commented on. As such it is a weasel word, puffery or just plain wrong. CSDarrow (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:No consensus, I've deleted this entire passage. It has multiple problems, starting with no consensus.William Jockusch (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:No consensus does not justify deleting content. What's more it is only an Essay, and not a policy or guideline so citing it doesn't really mean much. If you think that content has multiple problems please identify what you think they are, and offer potential solutions. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Scholars and others" in the lede . . . seriously? "Sectors of the movement" . . . OK, apparently entire sectors of the movement are being described here. Which ones? The sentence is trying to have its cake and eat it too by putting in the insinuation of misogyny without having anybody take responsibility for the criticism or specifically stating to whom the criticism is being applied. Suppose the women's rights movement were being described here. Would it be acceptable to say in the lede that "sectors of the women's rights movement have been described as man-hating"? Or "Clergy and others have accused the gay rights movement of promoting an immoral lifestyle"? Or in the article on Western culture, we could note in the opening that "Imams and others have stated that Western culture is contrary to the law of Allah as revealed in the Koran."William Jockusch (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Scholars might be one thing, but who are these "others"? And why should anybody care what they say? That's weasel-ish in the extreme and it should be taken out. Federales (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Men.27s_Right.27s_Movement.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It drives me crazy that this type of link always seems to go dead after a while.William Jockusch (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If it has "gone dead" that means it has been archived, and discussion is closed. Archived discussions are still available for viewing; use the search function below the archive page links, or if the discussion is recent simply browse to it. That discussion is here, in Archive 799. KillerChihuahua 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Men's Rights Movement (or sectors of it) be described as "Misogynist?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been extensive discussion of whether or not the MRM (or sectors of it) should be described as "Misogynist", with no consensus in sight. Binksternet has helpfully linked some of the discussion above. As of today, the relevant sentence is the following, from the lede:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist

William Jockusch (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OP Comment As a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally. As in, "if you like certain unspecified sectors of the MRM, you are supporting Misogyny." Remove per WP:Label. William Jockusch (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove from the lead; retain in the body with specific attribution to named sources. The vague reference to "scholars" is being used as a crutch to introduce opinionated POV criticism and falsely burnish it with the illusion of objectivity. Federales (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: It's very well sourced, backed by SEVEN reliable sources in the lede itself, a fact that William Jockusch failed to mention in his question above. It also represents a significant proportion of the coverage the MRM gets in reliable sources, so it belongs in the lede. Omiting it is simply POV whitewashing.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Very solidly sourced to scholarly and scholastic books. We are not here to help William Jockusch avoid feeling as if a slur has been aimed at him when the text in question is very neutrally worded, as neutral as possible. As well, the suggestion by Federales goes against the guideline at WP:LEAD which is required to be followed by every Good and Featured article. Significant prose is dedicated to this issue in the article body which is why it is mentioned very briefly in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - well sourced information cannot be removed by any process, wikipedia records well sourced mainstream perspectives without introducing our own biases. Opening an RFC on the basis of being "a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally" shows a) a clear lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and b) a prima facie vested interest. Arguing that a factual description of a topic is somehow a reflection upon you personally is a straw man, and utterly irrelevant to whether the information is encyclopedic or not. Also FYI, using, or appearing to try to use, processes to run around WP:NPOV is inadvisbale in an area under probation--Cailil ^talk 17:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - as long as which sectors of the movement are described by WP:RS as "Misogynist" and for what reasons are made clear. We have lots of articles describing sectors of various movements as racist or antisemitic or homophobic and sometimes even Islamophobic, so this is not tilling new ground here; and leaving out these factoids because it's only about women... well, don't get me started. Just as long as it follows WP:RS/BLP/NPOV/etc policies, which is what you can continue to argue about (as I have done for hundreds of hours on articles about the Israel/Palestine issue so there's lots of precedent). CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, per sources, although I would suggest rewording it as "The claims and activities of the men's rights movement have been critiqued by scholars and others, and some sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist." Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.