Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Memills sanctioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

changes to the intro and history sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast Cleanup - Hopefully!

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

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

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

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

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

thanks kevin.

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

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

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

I agree that many of your edits are helpful, Perpetualization, but I think you may be going a little bit too quickly, partly for accuracy and partly to allow discussion etc. For example, in this edit [3] you say that there is no mention of "epidemic" in the sources, when in fact it is [4]. However, I think your removal of the term seems appropriate, as it is cited to one guy/group and, contrary to what I was expecting, doesn't seem to be repeated that much elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I obviously disagree that your language was tighter and the distinction you made clearer, or that I was in any way disruptive. Your edits added citations to a statement that it did not support, conflated two Indian laws and groups , and misunderstood the UK context as the men's rights group there did not oppose a law but a legal decision in the House of Lords which actually struck down marital rape as a defence in exactly the same way that the proposed Indian law would do.[5][6]. You'll notice I did not restore the original entirely: I fixed what needed to be fixed and let other edits to those sentences unchanged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I simply don't agree with your first point, and frankly given the number of sourcing mistakes you've made since yesterday, it worries me that you are so confident.[7][8][9][10]. But I will give it a rest until tomorrow to rework this section. --Slp1 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I disagree. This is clearly a reliable source, and we don't remove sources because we can't back it up with our own original research. Indeed here is an article on the website where the founder/leader complains "marital rape" laws as a false flag [11]. Nor is it necessary for footnotes to be given, or for it to be the central topic of the source. I see that you've mentioned this last point several times, and it really isn't valid.Slp1 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you no doubt noted, I've not queried the removal of the Lee source, as it does in that paragraph specify father's rights activists (though I will note that other parts of that particular encyclopedia article-about the FRM- speaks about more general MR groups). I do think in general that excluding sources about the FRM will have some implications and might need some thought, since there is considerable overlap between the two movements and sources do tend to use the terms interchangeably at times - with at least one men's rights group morphing into a FR group for example.[12]. But as long as we decide something sensible and stick to it, that's fine with me.--Slp1 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know about other editors, but I'd agree that we should not use FRM stuff; if that is the decision there will have to be some deletions/replacements of material/sources further up the article. As I said though, in some articles/books that are ostentiably about the FRM there is info and commentary about the MRM (e.g. [13]) which is eminently useable. --Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom, the United States and India have opposed marital rape legislation and legal decisions.[76][87][88] The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings,[89][90][91] and in India anxiety about relationships[92] and the future of marriage as such laws give women "grossly disproportional rights".[88]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rename article: "Feminist Perspectives on the MRM"?

If this is a serious suggestion, then requested moves is thataway. Given that this article has been recently moved here from Men's rights, which was upheld by ANI and confirmed by a subsequent discussion at RM, it is unlikely that the article will be moved to the suggested title. Long, pointless polemics on the talk page of this article may be found to be disruptive; this is to be avoided, especially by those already sanctioned for their behavior on this topic. This page is for discussion of how to improve this article, not for arguing the topic itself. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Several comments (above) are revealing of the elephant in the room -- most of the references in the article are to sources written by feminist authors who view the MRM in a negative light. Kevin noted above: "...the vast majority of what I have found is analysis of the movement by gender academics (some of whom, but not all of whom, are feminist or pro-feminist) that tends to view the movement negatively - which should thus by npov be the predominant opinion expressed in the article." That is an interesting take on NPOV. Imagine an article "The Democratic Party" primarily written and sourced by Republicans. NPOV? Hypothetically, and with substantial hyperbole, imagine that the majority of WP editors in 1940 German language edition of WP were Nazis -- Nazism would thus be NPOV in the article on The Rights of Jewish People in Germany? MRM folks would likely suggest that the fact that there are many Women's Studies, but so few Men's Studies, academic departments is itself a MRM issue (and, that it violates U.S. Title IX). And, there is emphasis placed on academic sources over non-academic ones. Yet, ironically, when professor Benatar does write a book about men's rights, The Second Sexism, some have objected to using it as a reference here because it is about men's rights, but not about the MRM per se. Imagine an article on the feminist movement that did not include considerations of women's rights (especially after the "women's rights" article was folded into the "feminist movement" article, leaving no article on "women's rights"). Is the article a neutral and an accurate overview of the MRM and the men's rights for which it advocates? Memills (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The "problem" is that the men's rights movement has not drawn the attention of male scholars, but has been of interest to female scholars. If male scholars wrote about the topic then we would quote them. The fact that a scholar is female does not change Wikipedia's respect for scholarly thought. You will have to work within the lack of male scholars. The article most certainly will not change to your proposed title, which is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Not sure if this falls under the FORUM-guideline, but of course there are no MRM advocants in women's studies scholars because they are based on the feminist theory. Every basic course of gender studies starts with certain points that directly are against men's rights movement ideas so it's hardly surprising. But I think the problem here is that we're talking about academic debate. Sociology, as not an exact science relies on such arguments and debate. Sometimes scholars even publish provocative articles that have completely different viewpoints than others. As such, we can't really compare these sources to verifying a physics-related fact from physics scholars for example. --Pudeo' 02:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Re-read WP:NPOV, particuarly WP:STRUCTURE, and also look at WP:POVFORK. Articles are not split into "pro" and "anti", or "masculinist" and "feminist" versions. It's a single page. The defining feature of a reliable source is reliability, not whether it agrees with the page's subjects or the opinions of specific editors. "Feminist" criticisms should not be removed or ghettoized because they do not adopt the POV of the page's subjects. Expand the page with reliable "masculinist" sources. Please stop suggesting splitting, forking or otherwise inapprropriately separating either the page, or the page contents, into competing viewpoints. Improve the page by expanding it with more reliable sources. Do not try to "improve" the page by tearing out the sources and sections you do not like. "Neutrality" is based on sources, not on editor opinions. Accept this and move on. Perhaps try google books or google scholar rather than trying variations of already-rejected appeals on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Having really read and analyzed a few of the sources now, I'm beginning to understand what CSDarrow was getting at earlier. That even so-called academic sources can be unreliable for the purpose of writing a fair and balanced article. Many of them are complete crap, particularly when they attempt to describe what the men's rights groups actually say. This is a good example. It's not a source used in this article, but it's a good example of what I'm annoyed about; other sources in this article do similar things but more subtly and less disgustingly. While the author is scrupulous about properly citing feminist literature, he frequently puts words in the mouths of fathers' rights groups without any citation. See the last paragraph of the "overview" and the last sentence on page 334. Where can I look up where father's rights groups have said or done any of these things? The last of these is especially dodgy because he conflates a presumption of shared parenting generally with a presumption of shared parenting in cases where domestic violence is suspected. The whole thing seems to be a case of what I describe here. I come from a hard sciences background and I am frankly amazed that trash like this can even be published. If I were to criticize the opinions of another researcher I would not get away with stating his views for him. My paper would be returned to me with the instructions to carefully and methodically find and cite the works where he has said the things I'm attributing to him, and rightly so. This apparently is not the case in feminist literature, and I find it a bit alarming that a Wikipedia article can rest on such rotten foundations. But WLU is right about this, that we have to do the best we can with the sources at hand. If all the literature in scholarly journals on gender studies are complete baloney, then we're stuck with it and have to write articles that are also complete baloney. My analysis above is, of course, a lot of original research and we should not base the contents of articles on original research. We evaluate sources to determine how much they contribute to notability, like are they independent and substantive, but I'm not sure how far we should go to evaluate their accuracy. Unless an equal and opposite body of literature arises that defends and promotes the MRM, or feminist journals suddenly develop a tradition of honesty and intellectual rigor like that found in the physical sciences, we're stuck with the current unbalanced status quo. However, we should not let it degenerate into an anti-male polemic either. Reyk YO! 10:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Good luck getting Women's studies to adopt the rigor of physics :) Do you see the current page as a polemic, the current wording as inappropriately strident, or any sources that fail reliability? In other words, do you think the current page does the best it can given the sourc material? It sounds like you don't see such issues on the current page, I'd just like to confirm. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) "That is an interesting take on NPOV." - you may find it an interesting take on NPOV, but it is 100% Wikipedia's take on NPOV. To quote from the WP:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis added.) If you perceive an imbalance or injustice in the way that existing reliable sources have treated the MRM, the way to address that imbalance is to go publish some works that meet our definition of reliability from a different perspective. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom, the United States and India have opposed marital rape legislation and legal decisions."

The above sentence gives no indication as to what we're actually talking about. "Martial rape legislation and legal decisions" could mean anything. What sort of legislation and legal decisions are we talking about? Can we give some examples or perhaps rephrase this so that it isn't so vague? Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean give a definition of marital rape? It's wikilinked in the phrase. Donileen et al. talk about decriminalizing marital rape, Dunphy on page 142 talks about an activist's anger at a court ruling, and the article on India discusses opposition to the law. Would "...have opposed legislation and legal decisions that would make it illegal for a husband to force his wife to have sexual intercourse against her will." Otherwise it gets into the individual opposition discussed by each source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that cite 87 doesn't mention Mens Rights Advocate or the movement at all.64.42.240.5 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Age describes the Harassed Husbands' Association as a men's rights group, but if there's reason to believe that isn't accurate, we can remove the quotation.[14] Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which reference is "87" specifically? The number doesn't help if another citation is added previously. I assume it's talking about this article, which doesn't refer to the Harassed Husbands Association as a MRM, but as Kaldari points out, The Age does, making it acceptable in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mean we need to define marital rape, I mean we need to explain what sort of legislation and court decisions we're talking about. Are we talking about legislation that would criminalize or decriminalize marital rape, legislation that would legalize or prohibit marital rape (which is different than criminalizing), legislation that would increase or decrease penalties for marital rape, legislation that would change the definition of marital rape? Those all have very different implications. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the three sources used are quite minimal in their discussion - as far as I can tell they basically point to MRM that oppose laws against marital rape, but don't go into detail beyond that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Homelessness and work-related injury

So a new account has been adding information on homelessness and work-related injury. These may very well be MRM issues, but they must be sourced as such. The citations appended to the sections were indeed about homelessness and work-related injury, but in no way linked these issues to the MRM, making it a synthesis at best. A subsequent set of edits added youtube as a reference, but youtube is not a reliable source. I have no issue with these items being linked to the men's rights movement, but they must be verified using reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the problem was one of synthesis, attributing men's rights movement interest to topics when the cited source says nothing about men's rights. In fact, the homelessness cite says that the majority percentage of homeless men has been decreasing because of a rising number of homeless women. Such a trend greatly weakens the subtopic of homelessness with regard to the notion that it is an issue for men's rights groups. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Youtube itself is not a source, but a video can be: template:Cite video, if it can be detailed with further information. There's actually on essay on that which details Youtube too: Wikipedia:Video links. --Pudeo' 02:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Policy note: The essay is good guidance. Pay special attention to the part about copyright violation; while an NBC broadcast is an RS, unless it was uploaded by NBC it cannot be used. Same for any other news service. Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously. Blocks may ensue for copyright infringement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term "Academics"

I made two edits, one in Health and one in Domestic Violence. The purpose was that I felt the way the term "Academics" was being used in was ambiguous. More specifically that the statements could be read as either the academic community. Or a group of academics. From what I read in the sources none of them referred to the academic community, thus the term was referencing a group of academics. For that reason I added "some" to the condition to show that the sources indicate that these views are from these academics and not the academic community. I view leaving the term as "Academics" as opposed to "Some academics" implies there is academic consensus on those pertaining statements and violates WP:RS/AC. Kyohyi (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kyohyi. There is no problem with you editing the section or article to better meet the source as written, but simply adding "Some" is not appropriate. Is it possible to simply clarify which academics have this opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one method to overcome this is to attribute the opinion to the author of the source and use a quote. Thoughts?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "critics", which eliminates the word "some", yet still narrows the subjects of the sentences to just those who have voiced an objection. "Academics" wasn't the right word to use here anyway, as it adds a connotation of authority that may not be warranted. Belchfire-TALK 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That as well got reversed as even that term is somewhat weasly...but even the way it is now is as well. "Academics critcise..." seems to still need clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The problem I see is the language suggests that all academics disagree, which is obviously a problem. Belchfire-TALK 00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember is that it comes from the individual sources linked. If I'm incorrect the term "Academics" is intended to be used as a descriptor of the people who were cited. More specifically that Messner, Flood, etc. are Academics, and these are the people critiquing this. However using the term "Academics" alone can imply academic consensus, which I was not able find in any of the sources. I am aware that the term "Some" can be used as a weasel word, however I feel it would be accurate here in order to remove ambiguity from the statement. In this case it's not the academic community that has this critique, but the academics which are cited. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is something that needs some looking into to see exactly what the source is saying. If the source states this in such general terms, perhaps it should be attributed to the source author as I suggested ealier with a quote.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read of the sources cited, they appear to be individual academics talking about the Mens rights Movement. While an individual source could be pulled out to emphasize the critique, it would weaken the statement by changing it from a group of academics to one. However, none of the sources I read appear to be a meta-analysis of the analysis of the mens rights movement. And I didn't find any references in them to what Academics as a group believe. Kyohyi (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think I get what you're getting at Amadscientist. And what I suggest, is that we re-introduce the word Some in front of Academics, (leaving the sources intact) then go through the sources, and add their content to the body of the paragraph, in turn removing the sources from the lead sentence as we add them to the body. How does that sound? Kyohyi (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time to dig into some of the refs I've found, but in regards to the last revert reason of 'No academics who say otherwise', I've found some from Murray Straus, who is a professor of sociology who seemingly disagrees. I may be able to dig further if needed later. Arkon (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The last edit summary isn't accurate, and the edit was unconstructive. Belchfire-TALK 01:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to make a broad statement of "some academics". The source itself has to say that. So if we, as editors know that "Some academics" say something and we write that into the article, it is original research, even if we add the critcism. However, if we take it as a direct quote from the RS and attribute the opinion then we are on firmer ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is right now we have a broader statement of "academics", if we can't support the statement of "some academics" then we also can't support the statement "Academics". Kyohyi (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, even as it is right now, it is not to policy. As I see this, the problem appears to be synthesis and original research. Just adding a number of academic opinions as inline citations and then making the claim about academics is innaccurate and may not be at all what any of the references say.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you are quite wrong about this. WP will not marginalize what seems to be the mainstream opinion of scholars (by attributing/saying "some" etc) until it is clear that is a minority opinion or disputed in some way. For example, we don't write: "Dr. X says penicillin kills bacteria. Dr. Y does too". We survey the academic opinion and summarize the mainstream view (e.g. penicillin kills bacteria) and if there are minority views summarize them in proportion to their importance. But the problem with this discussion here is that nobody is proposing any sources that dispute the fact that academics do critique men's rights use of the the statistics/research that is available. We can only start having this conversation when academic sources are provided that actually agree with the men's rights activists' interpretation of the matter. And for a start, note that Gelles (who coauthored with Straus much of the research cited by MRAs) has himself actually opposed MRA conclusions.

"Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers."[15]

Once again, we need sources. Find some sources. Then we can talk.

Slp1 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And Straus himself has said "For example, although domestic violence victims who need the services of a shelter are overwhelmingly women, I am willing to accept the cost of radical male advocacy groups misusing the results of my research to oppose shelters for domestic violence victims that do not provide the same services for male victims.".[16]. Not exactly a ringing endorsement either.Slp1 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't wish to discuss this then, by all means you don't have to. But we are talking about this now. You are confusing "balance" with original research. As I said, this appears to be a matter of an editor adding several references from academics and then making a claim not supported by any of the sources. You cannot lump a bunch of academic opinions together and then say "academics" as there must be a source to the claim itself. As I said to do so is synthesis. If you are familiar with the article do you know if the claim is made in any of these references? Right now there is a dispute and we do not have to wait for other sources to deal with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let's try a thought experiment, Amadscientist. On the Aids denialism article, do you think we need to Academic x says Aids denialism is wrong, and academic y says Aids denialism is wrong and academic z says Aids denialism is wrong, or can we just say "Academics states that Aids denialism is wrong"? The answer, of course, is the latter. And if you go to the article, you'll see that that is exactly what was done there, only they put it like: "The scientific community considers the evidence that HIV causes AIDS to be conclusive...". If there is no serious dispute about a topic, all we do as editors is to summarize the mainstream opinion see- WP:NPOV). Doing so is not by any means synthesis. To date the academic sources provided all do critique the men's rights position and that is what is reflected in the text. Until academic sources are found to that support their views, this is the way it has to stay per NPOV.Slp1 (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not playing this game. Just show how this is within the current policy and guidelines please.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're linked example Aids denialism, SLP1, just highlights the problem with this section. The issue I brought up, is that none of the source explicitly state what "Academics" as a group view of the Mens rights movement. What they are, is a number of academics whom criticize the claims of the Mens Rights Movement. These are two different statements. One implies academic consensus which is not supported with any of the sources. The use of the word "some" removes the implication of academic consensus (For which there are no reliable sources presented) while leaving the weight that these sources are academic. In Aids denialism a single source is used which says that there is academic consensus, in this article we are using multiple academics, and the argument that since there are no academics cited arguing against to make the implication that there is academic consensus. This falls outside the guidelines of WP:RS/AC, and into the realm of original research. In order to say that "Academics" the group have a certain opinion, we need a reliable source that says that. Kyohyi (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion below where the consensus of experienced editors appears to be against your view. But just to say you are incorrect to say that there is a single source for scientific consensus on the Aids denialism article. --Slp1 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence

New content was added, copy pasted from Domestic violence#Violence against men without attribution by a newly created account. Apart from the lack of attribution, no reason was provided why that specific content is directly related to the Men's rights movement. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even with attribution within WP, the second problem remains unsolved. Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I looked at the first two sources in that paragraph, and both explicitly say "men's rights". I'm not sure what the issue is. Reyk _YO! 09:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I downloaded the source "Domestic Violence Against Men in India: A Perspective" by A. Kumar. It only mentions the rights of women in India (page 291). I haven't looked at the other sources. Is the content just an essay by wikipedians? Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

the source that you mention only applies to one sentence of the paragraph. the rest of data is from reliable sources, not essays by wikipedians. Enjois (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the first reference. Felson & Pare (2007) and Kingsnorth & Macintosh (2007) are the third and fourth but there are no sources listed in this article for them. The second reference is Hoyle & Young (2002), New Visions of Crime Victims, Pp 94-96. On those 3 pages in the article by Ann Grady the words "men's rights" do not occur. Refs 3 and 4 are not given in the original article Domestic violence. Ref 3 is "Does the Criminal Justice System Treat Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Offenders Leniently". There were no refs to men's rights on page 436. Ref 4 is "Intimate Partner Violence: The Role of Suspect Gender in Prosecutorial Decision-Making." There is no mention of men's rights on page 461, the second page of the article. It seems that neither Reyk nor Enjois have checked any of these references. So in that sense these sentences, lifted from another article, are not specifically about men's rights. Why then have they been included? Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct about Hoyle and Young. However, ref 3 (Felson and Pare) is a correct citation, as the article asserts that women are treated more leniently than men when it comes to domestic violence. A specific use of the term "men's rights" is not necessary any more than an article discussing a ban on discrimination again women in employment needs to use the terms "feminism" or "women's rights" to be relevant to feminism and women's rights. Moreover, the earlier articles in the section clearly establish a link between men's rights activism and the disparities in domestic violence research and enforcement, so there is no question as to the relevance of the arguments made in ref 3. The same is true of ref 4 (Kingsnorth & Macintosh), which addresses leniency in the criminal justice towards women relative to men. Both of these articles clearly address issues of concern regarding discrimination against men and in favor of women in domestic violence. They should be permitted in the piece. Otherwise, by this standard, you'd have to go through the entire feminism wiki page and remove every article that did not specifically utilize the term "feminism". Creonitus (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed text, however, said that men's rights groups considered this to be an important topic. That assertion is not proved by a source merely describing the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the texts, which even in the original article have no proper citation, discuss men's rights. Definite page numbers were given. It is WP:OR to interpret these texts as discussing men's rights or the men's rights movement. The paragraphs were created in a completely different context and copy-pasted here, initially without attribution. Wikilawyering now to persuade other editors that they really concern the MRM is not helpful. This is a wikipedia article not an essay by wikipedians giving their personal views on what they think constitute men's rights (or the lack of them). The article feminism (or women's rights) is not relevant; in any event neither of those articles suffers from the same paucity of sources. Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs in question. The first includes the improper citation to Hoyle and Young. That paragraph is properly removed. The second paragraph suffers from no such deficiency. The only reference to Men's Rights Activists in that section involves a citation to a piece by Anant Kumar ("Domestic Violence against Men in India: A Perspective"). That piece discusses the increasing frequency of violence against men and the reluctance of men to report it. If you think that an explicit reference to the term "Men's Rights" needs to be made for this argument, then simply include a cross-reference to the already cited piece by Anit Kumar (no relation as far as I can tell) ("Men's Movement in India: Story of Save Indian Family Movement"), which is an explicit discussion of the Men's Rights Movement in India, and it includes a reference to the same argument and material on page 2. The second two sources in the paragraph are not used in explicit reference to the Men's Rights Movement, but to the underlying information supporting the claims of Men's Rights Activists. Several pieces throughout this section discuss MRA's concerns with domestic violence against men, underreporting of those trends, and discrimination against men in the legal system. The first paragraph in the Domestic Violence section covers much of this. The link between this information and MRA advocacy has been clearly established in the article, so I do not understand why the information would be removed. This is not "lawyering" or whatever other labels you wish to throw. I do not know anything about the material being copied/pasted. If that is the underlying issue, then I remove my objection to the removal. However, that is not the reason upon which you seem to rely. (Incidentally, the relevance of feminism is in the analogy.) Creonitus (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Creonitus. WP is not the place to make such cross-connections; WP has a specific policy against this kind of original research. WP is not here to show how to expand (either in a positive or negative direction) what reliable sources say about MRM and their views. This article is about the MRM, not the place to bolster a section about a cause they are concerned with novel arguments and statistics that they might use (or alternatively which proves them wrong). It isn't the place to discuss the topic of domestic violence at all, only verifiable material about what the MRM and their supporters and critics say on the topic. In any case the Anant Kumar article is a very dubious source, except possibly as the opinion of a MR activist. You'll notice that among its citations are a WP article (also a facebook posting, and men's news daily!) Talk about circular! Slp1 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Duh! I feel a little foolish; I looked at the first couple of sources in the section rather than the disputed paragraph by mistake. I have no opinion for or against the material itself; just that I think it shouldn't be taken down as a copyright infringement when it came from Wikipedia in the first place. Reyk _YO! 22:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Reyk. Enjoi, please do not add material in this way again or misrepresent the sources. Since it's not specifically about "men's rights", its inclusion here is just essay-like (wikipedians acting as commentators). I will remove the material in due course. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

in regard to mathsci saying none of the citations specifically mention men's rights this is not necessary. the information which i added clearly relates to men's rights and men's rights issues so the real question is why do you keep removing it? Enjois (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• First off, two of the citations do not even exist as references in the article as mentioned above. Secondly, even when all the citations were accurately located, downloaded and checked (by me), none of them specifically mentioned men's right or the men's rights movement. All the previous content in the section on "domestic violence" has citations of that kind, as Reyk pointed out. Adding content without such specific references is contrary to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Reyk has already agreed that the new content is not directly related to men's rights. This is not an essay written by wikipedians on their personal views concerning "men's rights". Please do not edit war to add content which cannot be verified to be material specifically written about the subject of men's rights. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Enjois, Mathsci has it right. The content included here needs to have a clear, verifiable, link to men's rights. Your addition doesn't. Slp1 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed text, however, said that men's rights groups considered this to be an important topic. That assertion is not proved by a source merely describing the topic

so as you can probably tell i am new to wikipedia, however the above statement seems to either be dishonest or completely clueless of facts. men's rights groups clearly consider domestic violence issues to be an important topic (the page itself contains a section for DV) therefore the information should absolutely remain in the wikipedia article. the REAL QUESTION is why there is such controversy about this accurate sourced information being added into the article, as well as apparent censorship of relevant men's rights issues on wikipedia. Enjois (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there are concerns that men's rights groups have about domestic violence. However, you must find sources saying exactly that, not sources which describe domestic violence but which do not say anything about the men's rights movement. It is very likely that there are such sources; please use them. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "the REAL QUESTION is ........ , as well as apparent censorship of relevant men's rights issues on wikipedia."

the REAL ANSWER (which is another way of saying "in my opinion", the same meaning we assign to "the REAL QUESTION") is why do editors who have been here a week and edited on only one or two topics feel that everything should go their way? Why are these editors drawn to this particular topic? Could it be that they have an agenda other than creating a balanced wikipedia? Also, if you ended your question with a question mark you might be taken more seriously. Or, maybe not. Carptrash (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please tone down the hostility; rudeness to a new editor is especially inappropriate.

Why is anyone drawn to any topic on Wikipedia? Probably because they have an interest in the topic. For controversial topics such as this, some editors no doubt have strong opinions pro or con (i.e., see some comments on this talk page).

And it seems to me that some editors here apparently do wish to censor relevant men's rights issues on this page. How? Primarily by wikilawyering, along with a sense that their own interpretation of WP policies is the correct interpretation, despite contrary interpretations by other equally knowledgeable editors.

To suggest that *anyone* here is unbiased and holds no opinions on the topic is probably naive. Memills (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Memills, please could you restrict your comments to content and not contributors. At an early stage an external site at Reddit was coordinating edits on the article. That is part of the reason it is now under probation. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Could it be that they have an agenda other than creating a balanced wikipedia?"

no, however i do have an agenda of creating a balanced wikipedia. certainly this article, as well as others (in particular those related to feminist and men's rights issues) are very slanted and biased against males. this is a common theme i'm noticing the past few days throughout wikipedia. because men's rights are unfortunately still a taboo topic many editors on here want to censor them in the same way that feminists of the 1960s and 70s were censored, blamed, and attacked back then. i had hoped wikipedia would be a more neutral place when it comes to gender issues but apparently they are just like the rest of 2013 western society - sexist against males and ignoring real issues and double standards that affect men's lives. Enjois (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you have just presented us with a textbook example of "an agenda." Carptrash (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)