Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 17

The paragraph re: Fiamengo talk
I'm wondering if there's a consensus about the paragraph that was reinserted here. I have reverted it once today and it has since been added back, so I'm not going to take it out again without discussion, but I still think it's a bit problematic. First of all, the paragraph is meant to be about a talk given at a university, but the cited articles don't really cover the contents of the talk in detail. They touch on it, but are more about the protests and other reactions on campus. Secondly, the quality of the sources is not great - one is a student newspaper and the other is a free daily commuter tabloid. Third, I'm concerned that it puts undue weight on a single speech given to a single university's Men's Issues club. And fourth, the talk is described as a criticism of academic Women's Studies, which doesn't necessarily make it the part of the MRM, even if there is some overlap in content and even if it was delivered to a Men's Issues club. What say you? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, the text in question was reverted as I was typing the above comment. Is it worth discussing further? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think the problems with the sources, undue weight etc were totally covered in the discussion above. That's why I also reverted it. Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested to see what Dr. Fiamengo has published on this matter (her U of O biopage doesn't seem to list anything). That would be a valuable and interesting addition to the article, far more so than a speech or some off-the-cuff remarks in a free daily newspaper.  For everyone pushing for this material to be included in the article - if you can locate a transcript of the discussion or (even better, far, far better) a peer-reviewed scholarly article, chapter or volume, I would discuss including it (and if in the form of a peer-reviewed document, almost certainly support including it).  In the past I have corresponded with scholars regarding various wikipedia pages.  While e-mail correspondence is not a reliable source, sometimes the scholars can point to missing sources that can fruitfully be included in the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please, please, clean up this talk page?
There are a few sections that appear to be at least a few months old that could be archived. There are multiple sections on the same issue, etc... It's ridiculously difficult to read and follow what is going on here. I see an update in my newsfeed and I have to look at the diff to even be able to find the new additions on this page. I don't want to just go start archiving and condensing sections because I'm not experienced enough to avoid stepping on toes. Rgambord (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Better? —WWoods (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm going to delete this section, in the interest of cleanliness. Rgambord (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've archived it instead. Slp1 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed
" reproductive rights, divorce settlements, domestic violence laws, and sexual harassment laws," from the opening sentence and replaced them with a few others. I also added the word "perceived" in there somewhere. I have the supposed source for those removed items, the book by Newton, in front of me and find no mention of these in the pages referenced. Carptrash (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The author that book is a professor of Women's Studies, so perhaps the omissions are not surprising. However, I'm sure that there are other references that could be used here if one wanted accurately survey and cite the concerns of the MRM (e.g., books by Warren Farrell, David Benatar, Nathanson and Young, Roy Baumeister, etc.). Memills (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My issue here is not so much what the MRM is about, I agree that those items probably should be included, but rather the tendency of particular editors to add text to sections that are referenced that can not be found in the source mentioned. That Newton is a feminist is not relevant. That some editor adds a bunch of unreferenced material to a section that has a footnote is relevant. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Maintenance of running documentation/log of apparently biased content deletions and administrator sanctions on the MRM page
Several editors here have complained that there has been a continuing pattern of bias in this article, including editors "sitting" on it, biased wikilawyering and "consensus" reaching, tag-teaming, and biased administrative policing of this article. There is the perception among some editors that the article tends to reflect and enforce a pro-feminist/anti-MRM perspective POV (see this). For example, recent examples might include the administrative sanction of CSDarrow,see here and, the recent content deletion of an entire section "Conflict between feminism and the mens' rights movement." diff

It is difficult for an individual editor to document a continuing pattern, since it happens over time, and many editors drop out after experiencing one or more instances of such bias. If there is such bias, it would be helpful to be able to refer to a historical collection of examples. Perhaps a running log or table can be maintained of the instances where editors believe this to be the case (perhaps here, or, at an independent wiki or website). The log might be in table form with the following documentation: the date, content deleted, the editor who made the deletion, the rationale for the deletion, a diff link(s), etc. Another table or log might be devoted to documenting administrative sanctions: the editor who was sanctioned, the administrator who placed the sanction, and relevant diff links.

Wikipedia has acknowledged its problems with conflict resolution, and, the hemorrhaging of editors due to perceived bias and incivility. If there are patterns of bias in the MRM article, it would be helpful to have such historical and continuing documentation available for new editors to be made aware of it up front, and, to assist in conflict resolution efforts via ANI or other venues. Memills (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is fascinating
to find it posted above, "The following discussion is closed." I looked up "discussion" and found, on wikipedia, "a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette." What is missing from the above "discussion" is a second or third person. I believe that the above posting is called a "monologue" or perhaps in modern usage, a "rant." I am NOT a wikilawyer, You will rarely see me referring to or quoting the rules, but I am wondering what the precedent is for declaring a monologue as a discussion and then closing it? Seems to fly against all wikitradition. Very curious indeed. I wonder who closed it? I suppose that is what the history button is for. Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so probably User:KillerChihuahua did it. I recently went to the very tough neighborhood and had to get out of my car in a lot defended by two pit bulls and a long haired Chihuahua.  While they all got my full attention I had the feeling that the Chihuahua was running the show.  As it shluld be. Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was I - and the "discussion" verbiage is part of the archive top and archive bottom. There is no provision for "this misuse of an article talk page is closed." Also: Pit Bulls are sweeties. Of course the chihuahua was running the show. :-) Killer Chihuahua  21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? I was more than prepared to make a "discussion" of it, and it is probably just as well that you intervened before that because afterwards you possibly would have felt a need to block me. Life. Who knew? Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that such a "discussion" is not likely to lead to an improvement of the article. Perceived admin bias etc. is dealt with more productively elsewhere or, if it is to be done here, the individual problems could be made part of an RfC or so. But generalities and innuendo are not easily dealt with in the first place. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As Drmies says, the point of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Carptrash, do you have any improvements to the article you'd like for us to consider? --JasonMacker (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch. Though this edit is not dependent on your consideration. Now, what have you got to offer to improve the article? Carptrash (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring
WLU is reverting edits and deleting sections without reading the sources provided for them. She also did not participate in the discussion on the name of the "conflict with feminism" section if she doesn't like its current description. All three sources provide in my edits were from print newspapers that heavily quoted the people involved. Meaning they are reliable and discuss the MRM. Three separate incidents are discussed in this section. More are likely to be added over time. Edits should not be deleted for ideological reasons.

Please discuss WLU's edit warring and inappropriate deletions. Fixed grammar mistake. Yhwhsks (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since you ask, I think WLU's edit was appropriate for the reasons stated in the edit summary - a couple of small incidents, as described in the section are not notable enough to merit their own section. I think your reversion of WLU was the inappropriate edit-warring. Per the BRD cycle, especially for an article that's on probation, you were bold, you were reverted, you should have discussed instead of simply undoing the reversion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The one source that is available doesn't even expressly identify the protestors as feminists, nor does it identify the lecture they were protesting as being about the MRM - to quote directly from The Varsity: "Fiamengo’s lecture on “‘What’s Wrong with Women’s Studies?” examined what she identified as the problems with academic feminism and women’s and gender studies programs." Discussing problems of academic feminism is not necessarily related to the MRM. Given this, I really think there is some original research/synth going on to use this type of source to support a section purportedly about the conflict between feminism and MRM. I am, at this point very tempted to revert you like WLU did. Would there be consensus for removing the section in question? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, correct me of I'm wrong, the two sources do not identify Ms. Fiamingo as a men's rights activist and even if they did, WP:UNDUE would apply. This appears to be more of the same coatracking to make this article about feminism and women's studies and not about the men's rights movement. In addition to that, the summary of the sources seems a bit too creative and the inclusion of the blacklisted men's rights site is just plain wrong. I support the removal of the section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a she.
 * The sources (two at my count) are a free Canadian daily tabloid and the U of T student newspaper. These sources are not on par with the scholarly volumes used elsewhere.  The edits also suggested that the protests and actions taken regarding two local talks were widespread and systematic.  In addition, the sources themselves contained criticisms of the MRM that were not included.  There was far too much one-sided detail for what were ultimately small, local events with no applicability in general.  I've left a summary of "the U of T presentations were protested", and even that is excessive detail.  To cobble the events described in these local newspapers to have some sort of relevance for the international men's rights movement is simply, flatly, wrong.  I have essentially removed the text again, and think even the remaining text is excessive and poorly placed.  The Metro source does identify Fiamengo, in a way, as part of the MRM, "[Fiamengo's] talk is part of the growing activity of “men’s issues” groups, more commonly known men’s rights activists, on Canadian campuses."
 * Put in terms of the P&G, the text I removed was WP:UNDUE weight on sources of dubiousreliability (for what they verified) that grossly extrapolated the events of a single location in a display of inappropriate original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree with this removal. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board or a newspaper.  The section was extraordinarily clear WP:UNDUE in this context.  I will also say that the information used from the sources was very selective.  I note that some of the protesters were internet-stalked and harassed by someone with associated with avoiceformen and register-her.  If information about the protest is going to be fairly and neutrally included in such detail, then the whole story needs to be told, no? Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Metro article, the talk given by Jiamengo was about feminism:
 * The University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society is hosting a talk by a professor who will discuss why she believes feminism and women’s studies has created a “mean-spirited bias against men” in the humanities.


 * University of Ottawa English professor Janice Fiamengo is scheduled to speak on March 7. Her talk is part of the growing activity of “men’s issues” groups, more commonly known men’s rights activists, on Canadian campuses.

From varsity
 * A controversial speech critiquing feminist studies delivered by University of Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo

Fiamengo talk is about feminism, and she is identified as talking about men's rights activist. The appropriate thing to do here is 1) change the name of the section and discuss the most appropriate ame 2) add material yourself that you feel should be included from this source or elsewhere 3) these are print newspapers and meet quality standards so your complaint about this doesn't apply. Yhwhsks (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It would do you guys well to pay close attention to this section:


 * In another incident, feminist protesters repeatedly tore down A Voice for Men website posters at Arizona state University. Commenting on this action, Amelia Lewis Professor of Constitutional Law James Weinstien said "To stop the message because they (feminists) disagree with it is the antithesis of free speech." In addition, Feminist "censors could very easily get their message across without suppressing the others' free speech rights.

Yhwhsks (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted you again; it's clear you don't have consensus to keep adding it back for all the reasons enumerated in this section already. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Only revert edits made that are being disputed. The relation to feminism and the change to history are not part of this discussion Yhwhsks (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All your additions today were reverted, including the one in the section "Relation to feminism". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yhwhsks, everything I reverted, including the paragraph you restored, is being discussed here. The fact that you moved it from the "conflict" section to the "relation" section earlier doesn't change the fact that it's under discussion here and you didn't have consensus to restore it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this content has been added back again, I just want to mention that I think it clearly WP:UNDUE to use a single incident to source a section on conflicts between feminism and the MRM, especially given that the sourcing is not the best - a student newspaper and a free commuter tabloid. The paragraph in the "relation to feminism" is also given undue weight, because it addresses the content of Prof Fiamenco's lecture, but cites sources that only address the contents in passing - they are articles about the protests against the lecture rather than being about the lecture itself. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sources and accompanying sections. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I just removed
this section from the lede,
 * Issues commonly associated with the men's rights movement include marriage, cohabitation, parentage, job discrimination, divorce, support agreements, and child support.

The source alluded to, the book by Wishard & Wishard does not address the men's rights movement at all. Or very little. The authors, a father & daughter team wrote their book (1980) to assist men through the legal changes that resulted from changes in laws and interpretation of laws brought about largely by the women's movement. They do not mention these items as being "associated with the men's rights movement." Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and put a neutrality dispute tag on the article to make it clear that there is a dispute. Can you explain why you did this and removed that section from the lede? I'm trying to figure out why it is you think that the reference provided does not corroborate the text? My view on this is that it's likely that it used to say "associated with men's rights", but when this article was moved to Men's Rights Movement that part of the text got changed to reflect the article's name, without regard to the source. So my idea is to keep the text in, but simply change it to reflect the source, i.e. change it back to "associate with men's rights", because that is what the book deals with.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I an not that concerned with your view of what is likely. I have the Wishard & Wishard book right in front of me. It does NOT say that these listed items are "associated with the mens rights movement." It can not be used as a source for that statement.  The statement can not be returned without a source.  Oh, and thanks for the tag.  I knew something was going on. Carptrash (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I see on your tag summary you wrote, "this is more accurate regarding the dispute because it's to do with whether a source is providing accurate facts or not." That is not the case. The source facts are fine. It is that they are being misrepresented in the article. Carptrash (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the text should represent what the source actually says. The source talks about "men's rights", not "the men's rights movement", so the text should be changed to reflect that.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. This article is not about men's rights, it is about the Men's Right Movement.  Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead does not require citations. It is meant to summarize the article below.  Since much of the article is a list of issues with brief discussion, one could simply copy and paste the table of contents into the lead and consider one's job done.  I shall do so, and remove the tag in the process.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well good. So probably most of the stuff that I had removed can be placed back without the citations because I think most of them really belonged. Most is not the same as ALL, so it will be fun to see where this goes but my female intuition tells me that there still are shoals ahead. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article's factual accuracy is disputed
The article has been tagged for potentially being factually inaccurate, and other than it being touched on briefly in the above section, there doesn't seem to be a real discussion here related to this tag. If the tag is to stay, could we please have that discussion? What is inaccurate? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been getting some of the books that are referenced through interlibrary loan and doing some fact checking. I have removed what I saw as misrepresentation of these sources.  I believe that the tag went up as a reaction to those edits. I will continue to do this but at this point am not disputing any facts and would be comfortable if the tag were removed. I think the tag that said editors here are fighting like cats and dogs was accurate and appropriate.  However we need to hear from the editor who posted to tag, and likely will. Carptrash (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Typo in lede?
Hi,

Shouldn't the sentence " .... perceived discrimination and equalities faced by men..." be " ...perceived discrimination and INequalities faced by men ..."? Not that it isn't humorous, but ...

T 83.109.182.93 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was addressed . WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideological meddling
I noticed a edit removing this piece " In the United States, the men's rights movement has close ideological ties to neoconservatism.[16][17][18] Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organizations[19] and their arguments haven been covered extensively in neoconservative media.[20] Relation to feminism" was reversed.

The mens rights movement is not a "neoconservative" movement".

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ASc568aunFoC&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

The author of this document on page 76 blatantly misrepresents the statement on the national organization for mens website and trys to paint them as something they're not.The statement was reflecting on the divorce courts and the devaluation of fathers in their childrens lives in what is turning into a single parent environment.This wasn't a plea for "family value" conservatism.

This source says that the MRM has had it's issues covered extensively in the neoconservative media yet gives no mention of ANY mainstream neocon media outlets that have supported the MRM http://xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Connell,%20Change%20among.pdf it is simply an unsupported claim

This source Kenneth Clatterbaugh (2000). "Literature of the U.S. Men's Movements". Signs (University of Chicago Press) 25 (3): 883–894. doi:10.2307/3175420. Gives an ad hominem attack that doesn't conform with views that are held by mens rights activists.I don't see any sources talking about MRA's wanting to take away reproductive rights from women

This source http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/ It is fallacious to assume that all antifeminists or even SOME antifeminists support the MRM.And this an opinion piece by a feminist conflating MRA's with the the "family value" conservative antifeminists.

All of these are invalid criticisms which further add to the feminist bias on all mens rights articles. The views of far right bernard chapin are not proof of this "neoconservative connection" within the MRM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I restored the section you deleted, because, even by your own acount here, the statements were all supported by the sources. You disagree with the sources, obviously, and we can and should have that discussion here, but the fact is that the article represents the sources, and that's what Wikipedia does. Verifiability, not truth. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Verifiability -- via feminist / anti-MRM sources, not MRM sources themselves. "Verifiaibility, not truth."
 * Excellent characterization of the problems that make this article largely a misleading parody of the MRM. Memills (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dawn Bard
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it documents and explains the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. It is not a random collections of information or a forum for advocacy. Merely because some thing is verifiable does not justify its inclusion in an article. Wikipedia does not simply "represent the sources", as you claim. Wikipedia relies on the knowledge, good judgement and good faith of its contributors to collect a balanced representation of significant views and facts that are verifiable; so creating an informative encyclopedic description of the subject. Read WP:5P.


 * That's what Wikipedia does. Can you honestly claim this paragraph does that? Your "supported by the sources" argument is an inadequate response to Metalheads' detailed rebuttal; and at odds with the very essence of Wikipedia. This paragraph should be removed, especially as I see no discussion prior its inclusion.   CSDarrow (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that this paragraph be removed, together with a rationale for doing so. This paragraph was added without any discussion or consensus and is clearly problematic. I am therefore removing it. Please do not edit revert without discussion here. CSDarrow (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't post your opinion and then claim that because some redlinked editor agrees with you that it is consensus. Isn't "clearly problematic" another way of saying that you do not agree with the sources? Carptrash (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, I concur that the deletion was appropriate.
 * BTW, WP doesn't care about the color of an editor's signature. It may be red for a variety of reasons, including previous threats against an editor.) Memills (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Or it could be because he choses red because he has communist leanings? Lots of reasons? Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Carptrash, please revert your deletion of this material that CSDarrow restored (per his comment above). CSDarrow appropriately and civilly asked that it not be deleted again without further discussion here. Your deletion could be seen by an Administrator as edit warring on an article on probation, and sanction you for it (or... not). Memills (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash, stop derailing.All of the sources give unsupported claims by feminists who strongly oppose the MRM, why is the political affilation defined by the critics? Critics of the feminism movement could just as easily say that it is a marxist movement and according to your logic that would be ok because ideologues who conform with your viewpoint agree .The one source should MENTION the neocon media sources that are associated with the MRM.Another source is giving an ad hominem attack conflating the MRM with the Republican party, how can they be considered a valid source confirming such an association? — Preceding [[User:Metalhead498|Metalhead498 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)]] comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly, we seem to be looking at two different realities, different truths if you will. Because from my perspective, I am restoring material that Darrow deleted. Is this that male female realities thing?  Again?  As far as admins go . . . . . ....  they will do what they see fit.  PS I don't usually reply to unsigned posting.  Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Metalhead498, the problem is that here at WP we don't require secondary scholarly sources to prove their points with examples as you suggest, or indeed for sources to be "unbiased" and not influenced by a particular perspective. Please read WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:IRS.  As editors of this encyclopedia all we do is summarize the high quality sources that there are.  And in this case there are multiple sources that have made the linkage between neoconservatives and the MRM. And indeed  www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/is-the-right-sympathetic-to-the-mra (can't link because of the blacklist) shows that men's rights activists themselves make the link.  Do you have alternatives of similar quality to suggest?  For example, scholarly sources that talk about men's rights activism being a non-partisan grouping?  or others that talk about MR activists allied or linked with the left-wing or liberal media or parties?  They may be out there.  For example, Crowley, when talking about the Fathers' rights movement in her book "Defiant Dads", says that "leaders and members of fathers' rights groups come from all political persuasions including Republican, Democrats and Independents." p. 252 "The use of antistate rhetoric by fathers' rights groups, therefore, does not signify that their members are closely allied with neoconservative activism- although clearly some of them are- nor are these types of claims immutable political philosophy held by most Americans in a reflexive way.  Instead father's rights groups are taking advantage of an important moment in political time to strategically align their arguments with the belief of a significant share of American voters." p 253  This is the sort of thing that you need, though focussed on the men's rights movement. That material could then be added. Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sonicyouth, There many requirements of Wikipedia page including that the information form a balanced representation of the subject. It is fairly easy to find someone saying anything you wish about a group. By selective inclusion of sources any picture you wish can be painted. Which is what I would say is happening here. Neocon connections is not something I hear said about the MRM or FRM often; especially as the concept is an American one. These sentences have the effect of misleading the reader, and are poorly sourced opinions.


 * Simply finding sources does not immediately justify their inclusion, else Wikipedia would be anarchy. I might also direct you to WP:NPOV in general, and WP:UNDUE in particular. CSDarrow (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgetting references for the moment, are you suggesting, in the name of "a balanced representation of the subject," that there is no large area of overlap between the MRM and the conservative right? In America? Fascinating. A few moments ago we had feminism as a Marxist movement, now, what?  MRM is a Liberal one?  Carptrash (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This not the place to discuss the MRM or FRM., but I fail to see how Custody Issues, Male Suicide, Mens Health, Boys Education etc., has anything thing to do with politics left or right. Your misplaced view that the MRM is predominantly a right wing movement might explain many of your comments here. In reality most MRM issues effect working class men more, ie a group that statistically tends to be left of center. Painting the MRM as right wing may be convenient for some, but don't believe everything you read. CSDarrow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is your post addressed to SonicYouth, CSDarrow? Sonicyouth added the material to the article, and I have commented here. I think you have us confused somehow.
 * You are are quite right that WP requires us to have a "balanced representation of the subject", as you put it. How do we know that an article is a balanced representation? per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as you yourself mentioned:  "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".  It seems quite clear according to the citations provided by Sonicyouth86 that information about the neoconservative leanings of the movement (in the US... note that this is specified in the text) has been discussed by multiple reliable sources (and by some non-reliable MR sources to boot). You say that this is a selective inclusion of a particular perspective, and you may well be right.  But the onus is now on you to provide reliable sources to back up the fact that there is this other perspective to include.  That's what I asked you to do above, and I'm asking you to do it once again. Find some sources.  Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This not the place to discuss the MRM or FRM., but I fail to see how Custody Issues, Male Suicide, Mens Health, Boys Education etc., has anything thing to do with politics left or right. Your misplaced view that the MRM is predominantly a right wing movement might explain many of your comments here. In reality most MRM issues effect working class men more, ie a group that statistically tends to be left of center. Painting the MRM as right wing may be convenient for some, but don't believe everything you read. CSDarrow (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, sources, sources, sources. Your opinions about what is obvious or misplaced (and indeed what you think my opinion is) are irrelevant in this context. Opinions are two a penny. Provide some sources for the material that will balance the reliable sources presented to date, and then we will have something to discuss.Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most folks interested in basic human rights, including those areas wherein men may be treated unfairly, are often seen as politically left of center. However, I think it is inappropriate to classify the MRM as left or right -- especially when such characterizations are coming from anti-MRM folks, rather than from MRM activists or authors themselves.   Men, and women, of many political perspectives are interested in rectifying unfair or inequitable treatment of men.
 * Carptrash: You have not yet reverted your deletion. Again, until this issue is fully explored here, I would ask that you please do so. Memills (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I repeat, opinions are two a penny. Find some sources to back them up.Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not planning on reverting anything. I put something, heavily referenced, back that was removed under a very marginal claim of consensus. But I am fascinated with this presentation of the MRM as "a group that statistically tends to be left of center" and "politically left of center". And, finally we are in agreement about something, that the right wing folks don't give a ...... fig about " basic human rights." A good starting point for further movement. Carptrash (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you should revert, but neither do I think we need to encourage discussion about the topic as you suggest, Carptrash. This page and this encyclopedia are here to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. Talking about our opinions about where the MRM is on the political spectrum is totally pointless in the general scheme of things. --Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah . .. . . mumble, mumble, mumble . . . . . . ... okay. Sort of like, "DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS?" Carptrash (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's probably not the most calming way of putting it. I'd say something more like "keeping the discussion on track". One of the big problems here is that editors want the article to reflect their conception and vision of the men's rights movement (good or bad, left or right, liberal or conservative, progressive or traditionalist etc etc) and have difficulty facing up to the fact that in reliable sources the MRM has not always been described in a way that conforms to their own vision of the movement. As in the above discussion where personal opinions (including about how wrong the sources are) are the main topic of the discussion. And this can go both ways of course.... Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article is that, for the anti-MRM patrol duty contingent, certain sources are "more equal" than others. Content sourced from actual men's rights activists and authors is routinely challenged and deleted, content from anti-MRM sources is accepted uncritically.  Not in line with NPOV, Slp1.  Memills (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Memills, this is a kind of poisoning the well-type post that does not further discussion or benefit the encyclopedia. Lots of rhetoric but never any diffs or a source provided.  What evidence do you have that "content sourced from men's rights activists and authors is routinely challenged and deleted"? What evidence do you have that "content from anti-MRM sources is accepted uncritically" except the fact that you personally disagree with what the scholarly reliable sources say on the topic of the MRM? I believe you have been told already to cease this kind of behaviour.  If you have a problem, use the methods suggested (including the WP:RSN given your specific points above) to resolve your complaints. Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Memills, I encourage you to add reliable sources supporting your view of the men's rights movement. The operative word being reliable. And please refrain from attempts to discredit editors as "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sonicyouth. Wikipedia is not a medium for anyone to express their view, including yours. The responsibility of an editor is help create a balanced encyclopedic page. A fact at times I wonder might elude you. CSDarrow (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * CSDarrow, you need to stop with the personal attacks immediately. For the record, Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now.  It's time for an admin to step in and issue a binding restriction for him and for CSDarrow, and for anyone else who continues to ignore our polices. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack.  Please retract it immediately. Memills (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Memills, how many times have you been warned to use reliable sources and to stop attacking other editors? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please file your formal complaint immediately. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Viridatis. Excuse me? But my musing was a genuine comment not a personal attack; I really do wonder. When someone posts sources that are only critical of the MRM I think what I have said is pertinent, reasonable and not an Ad Hominen. Frankly my comment seems tame relative to "Sort of like, "DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS?", which I read above and was partially in reference to me. If some one wants to come in here and impartially take this page by the scruff of the neck then that's fine by me, you will have my full support. Consistency however will be the key to any success at this.
 * CSDarrow (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, save your excuses for ANI. Your genuine comment was a genuine attack on Sonicyouth86.  Either you guys shape up or ship out.  Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I give of my time freely to Wikipedia on many areas of this encyclopedia. I left the MRM page cause frankly the way it is run is a disgrace to Wikipedia relative to what I see elsewhere. I came back yesterday to see if things had changed, clearly they have not and any attempts at contributing are futile. I don't come to Wikipedia to be called an animal or spoken to in an imperious tone. You gave me two choices, I have chosen the latter.
 * CSDarrow (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop making things up. Nobody called you an animal, and you "left" MRM because you were blocked on March 11th for violating the article probation. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * CSDarrow has been blocked once. Viriditas has been blocked 9 times.  Who should be leaving? Memills (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Patrolling Administrator warning: Memills, I'm going to be issuing a topic ban shortly for another editor. I suggest you find a new train of thought unless you're itching for one too.--v/r - TP 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. Actually, Veriditas has only been blocked six times (two unblocks, plus a reblock for a reduced length of time), and the last block was in 2010, before CSDarrow even began editing. Moreover, Veriditas has over 121,000 edits, while CSDarrow has less than 1,000. You cannot draw an equivalence based on block logs in this case.  Horologium  (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Center for American Progress
I reverted Memills' removal of a sentence sourced to the Center for American Progress site ThinkProgress. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not surprised. However, using blog posts as sources has been routinely used here as the rationale for removing content.  I agree with your comment just above "I encourage you to add reliable sources. ...The operative word being reliable."   Blog posts from self-described "advocacy organizations" have been routinely rejected as reliable sources in this article. Memills (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Center for American Progress may be an unreliable source for claims about the men's rights movement but it is a very reliable source for its own view of the National Coalition of Free Men. Your repeated removal of sourced content without consensus is troubling. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not disregard WP:NEWSBLOG. The Center for American Progress is not a news organization, it is a self-described advocacy organization. If we are to allow this blog post as a reliable source, so too would blogs posted at other advocacy organizations, such as blogs at men's rights organization websites.  I don't think many folks here would approve of that. Memills (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Parental Leave
The Current Parental Leave section is not linked to the Men's Rights Movement by Sources. The only source used is about parental leave, but has not comments regarding the MRM. Including this material on this page is WP:OR. While I'm sure that parental leave is of some concern to some in the MRM, we need a source either pointing out the MRM's opinion on parental leave. As it is the current content should be removed from the Parental Leave section since it doesn't pertain to the MRM. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources don't mention the men's rights movement which means that the section is WP:SYNTH and needs to go. I see that your changes were reverted with the edit summary stating "Please discuss before deleting whole sections". This is odd considering that you did just that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Guys, and thank you for taking an interest in improving this article. I totally agree with the fact that this section is woefully under developed and something needs to be done.  However, where we begin to disagree is on what our tasks as editors are.  Rather than delete a section that is pretty clearly a concern to the MRM because the current sources aren't what they could be, we should work to find better and more specific sources.  To help you with your editing I have done a ten minute google search to find something we can start working with.  First is the page Fathers' Rights Movement.  This page likely can help us begin pulling in some better sources.  Here is a news article from msnbc that specifically lists parental leave as an MRM issue. .  In addition, here is the website of a men's rights organisation which lists studies to support its claims on parental leave. .  Again, I appreciate you taking an interest in this section and look forward to your suggestions on how the writing can be improved and provided with better references in addition to the ones above.  I will try to help rewriting this section as well including the sources I have just listed.  I am very busy, so I really do appreciate if you would look through these sources and help integrate them into the relevant sectionYhwhsks (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference indeed doesn't seem to mention the men's rights movement, and I would agree with removing it unless someone else can point to the section where it is discussed.
 * Unsourced sections and original research should be removed. If reliable sources make a connection between the men's rights movements and parental leave, it can be replaced.  Sections and sources remain because their content can be verified in reliable sources, not because editors think they are appropriate.
 * Partisan websites are not, in my opinion, sufficiently reliable to be used for much beyond the beliefs of the specific organizations, and I would argue against their inclusion unless they could be contextualized by reliable, independent sources.. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is a page about the opinions and positions of the men's rights movement, the mensright.com source is appropriate for this page. It is after all an authoritative source on its own positions on various issues. It is these positions that this page is meant to convey.  I do not mind identifying the originator of the source in the commentary. Yhwhsks (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know it is representative? How do you know it summarizes the MRM accurately?  How do you know it's meaningful?  You are not listening.  Read the policies and guidelines I cite - reliability matters, not whether you agree with the the opinions or think they are representative.  Sources are reliable, not "appropriate" or "authoritative".  Certainly it's not reliable the same way a scholarly source is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any policy-based objections to removing the section? I think we can all agree that the source doesn't mention the men's rights movement, which means that the section WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added notable and reliable references re this topic, including one to a prominent MRA -- Warren Farrell. Memills (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR: Could you please cite the passages that mention the men's rights movement in connection to parental leave? I'm asking because I took a look at the three references you added and couldn't find anything about the men's rights movement. If the sources do not mention the MRM then what you did is add more OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I could easily find some blog posts from MRM advocacy groups -- would that be ok to post?  Warren Farrell is a men's right's activist (part of the MRM), and has been referenced throughout the article. The other two are scholarly articles and are more relevant to the topic than the other sources in this section which also don't refer specifically to the MRM.
 * Also, you moved this section out of its chronological order (to the bottom of the Talk page). Please don't move sections of the Talk page out of chronological order. Memills (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a no. The three sources you added do not mention the men's rights movement and neither does the forth source (as discussed above). What is the policy-based objection to removing a section consisting entirely of WP:OR? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those 1994 references do not support the assertion. They do not say anything about the men's rights movement. I took them out. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Three sources were provided by Memills to cite the following text ""some of these [parental leave] provisions have been argued to discriminate against men". Let's look at all three.
 * As suspected above, this reference does not mention parental leave as an issue of concern of men's rights movement, and so it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to include it.
 * I will disagree with some of the posters above, as I think Warren Farrell is a well-established enough spokesman for the MRM that something written by him would be useable as a citation without direct reference to the MRM. But when I check this source, what do I find?  Two of the three references to parental leave are in the foreword, which was actually written by Karen DeCrow, and talks about to how feminist lawyers (including herself) have being urging the concept of parental leave (rather than maternity leave) since 1974!!! Are feminist lawyers suddenly part of the MRM?!!!  And no mention of discrimination, of course.  Farrell's only actual comment on the matter is to say "Mid-career men, often burned out with work, sometimes need to see just one successful person take a parental leave to be inspired to do the same". This by no means supports the claim either. In fact he says quite the opposite. Farrell implies men don't take advantage of the opportunities for parental leave that they do have. I gather Farrell is correct about this.
 * As with the previous reference, this one makes no mention of the MRM. But worse that that, nowhere is there any mention of discrimination against men.  Believe it or not, the only discrimination it talks is how US parental leave laws laws discriminate against women!!!!


 * Memills, I am utterly appalled by your editing on this page. Once again you add references that are either OR/SYNTH -as they make no mention of the men's rights movement - or fail WP:V by completely and utterly misrepresent the source. Or, unbelievably, both.  You clearly did not read the sources, and I'd suggest that the google search strings  you used, which are contained in the citations, (for example here where you used "parental leave discrimination men") say yet more about your editing approach, and explain how you came to use an article that repeatedly talks about discrimination against women as a citation for material about discrimination against men.    I've just wasted more than 2 hours of my afternoon checking up on this, reading the articles and finding your clear errors and misrepresentations. What an utter waste of time. Slp1 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Slip1, good work, but you missed one: the last remaining reference in the Paternity Leave section: "Internal Review of Leave Policies and Related Research". Employment Relations Research Series No. 80. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2007. pp. 12–13."  This source does not refer to the men's rights movement in particular, nor to men's rights in general.  So it to must be deleted too as OR.
 * Since that was the last reference, what remains of the section "Paternity Leave" should be entirely deleted.
 * Who would have thought that paternity leave would be an issue of concern to the MRM anyway? Apparently no one in the movement (including Warren Farrell) has written anything about the topic that merits a mention on WP.
 * Mission accomplished. Memills (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you absolutely no shame? It is found that you -an academic to boot  have  once again added OR and unverifiable material with false citations, and your response is to insult and impugn the motives of other editors. And then to continue to use one of the references that was shown to be false above. Incredible. --Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I'm an academic? Things that make you go: hummm.... Memills (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have mentioned it over and over and over again -Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch it guys, this conversation is leading off constructive paths.--v/r - TP 18:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. But I hope this won't distract you and KC from the core point that there is a continuing pattern of highly problematic V, OR edits from this editor. Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm paying close attention everyone's comments.--v/r - TP 01:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Different schools of the academia and NPOV
In part continuing the closed section Talk:Men's_rights_movement:

"Pretty much, what Binksternet said. If something is published in a solid academic source, it's not our place to try to implicitly belittle their scholarship. We consider scholarly sources - especially ones that have underwent peer review - to be of the highest quality."

We have to acknowledge that in social sciences, there is no single prevailing paradigm but different schools. We can't just interpret one or a few sources as the only truth in non-exact sciences. Let's take the organisation studies as an example, there are several schools: scientific management, classical management theory, human relations, structural theory, systems theory, cultural theory, symbolic interpretation, postmodernism etc. You can't just pick one scholar and say it's the truth, in fact scholars often have differing views which they sometimes debate in the publications. The feminist school in sociology represents one normative view that inherently disagrees with the MRM. The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject.

I think it's a rather fundamental acknowledgement editors must make when editing this article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences, I believe. --Pudeo' 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the "see also" section link to "mens studies"?
^ Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has described men's studies as "a wholly owned branch of women's studies" and scholar David Clemens has argued that the core question of men's studies throughout America is "Why are men so awful?"

In no way is mens studies related to the mens rights movement other then through the very loose association that is created through criticism by academics within the realm of mens studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead498 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My recent reversion
I just wanted to explain why I reverted this IP edit so quickly. The IP deleted this as not supported by the sources: "Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg, for instance, believe that all men are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed and argue that power is an illusion for most men since women are the actual bearers of power."' I checked out the source, and found on page 43 (which is page 5 of the 13-page pdf) the following: "These writers believe that men (all men) are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed by systems that ignore the situation and therefore ensure its continuation.[...]for most men, power is an illusion and that women are the true power holders in society". The paragraph that this is from begins with mention of Farrell and Goldberg and their respective books, so it's clear they are the writers being referenced. I think the text I restored is pretty clearly supported by the source, but I'm explaining here because this article has been so sensitive and controversial. Link to the source for reference: http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say the text would need to be labeled as to who is making this assertion. Such as 'Sarah Maddison states that blah blah blah'.  I don't think we should be stating it in wikipedias voice. Arkon (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Several separate / distinct sentences, and an entire section, were deleted in one edit without sufficient discussion here for each. It is easier if each distinct content deletion is made separately, so discussion of each can occur here.  Rapid deletion of material is premature without sufficient time for rebuttals by those who added material.  Memills (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you check the sections above, you will see that all of the material in question has been discussed, not just the Farrell and Goldberg sentence, and there was no consensus to include it. Potentially controversial material should be discussed before it's added, not after, especially in an article that is on probation, and that's why the edit you just restored was reverted by several different users. Because of the article probation, I suggest you revert your edit and continue the discussion here - you can see that there are already discussions happening, and that consensus is not with you. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While reporting of the protesting might be appropriate in some form in this article, however how it is currently written and placed is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to be consensus, Kyohyi, which means the article at the moment does not reflect consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, there's no real reason for text to remain on the page if someone has an objection. If someone deletes material, you will have much more luck including it in the main page after achieving consensus on the talk page.  Experienced editors can often parse tone and sources very quickly, so don't assume a quick removal means a thoughtless removal.  The information on protests was discussed above, currently the only arguments in support of it are "I think it should go there", no discussion of how it is justified per the policies and guidelines - meanwhile several objections based on the P&G have been raised.  On that basis, I've reverted again.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will leave the editing to someone who knows what they are doing but it is simply dishonest to attribute a belief to person A on the mere accusation of person B, as Arkon said above say 'Sarah Madison states...' not 'Farrell believes'. If there is a quote of Farrell for example saying he thinks something or explaining a consistent view point then cite that. I will try to find a copy of the works that the reference mentions (and trawl through the entire things as Sarah Maddison doesn't mention any specific part just whole books) to find something usable but as it stands you are putting words in peoples mouths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.122.67 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision: "while others have disagreed"
I think circumcision deserves its own section, rather than being lumped under health, but mostly I'm trying to get clarity on the phrase "while others have disagreed". Are these "others" part of the men's rights movement? In other words, are we talking about a debate within men's rights (using quotes from people discussing the issue in a men's rights context), or a debate between men's rights and people with other motivations in other contexts? I don't know how to view the articles being cited. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Portal and Proposal for WikiProject
I discovered Portal:Men's rights has existed for years now, and have proposed a WikiProject to go along with it. I think it might be more useful to co-ordinate efforts to improve articles, find sources, etc. using things like that, considering all the traffic this talk page gets. Especially when it comes to establishing the history of MRM pre-70s which seems to have hit a snag. Ranze (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I support and would contribute. However, I recommend that the article be titled "Men's rights and issues" in that some concerns are not specifically related to "rights," per se (but to expectations, social roles, etc.). Memills (talk)

1RR ANI topic
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Problematic lede
The lede reads:


 * "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a human rights movement, part of the larger men's movement, focused specifically on issues of perceived discrimination and inequalities faced by men."

"human rights movement" is not appropriate: it is unsourced; reliable sources do not describe it as such; it is the MRAs themselves who label it like that; it is not recognized internationally as a human rights movement.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A1C1 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we remove the "human rights movement" part and write: "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a strand of the larger men's movement, focused specifically..." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sonicyouth,
 * The Tarrant reference, clearly states that the Men Right's Movement is a Hate Movement. Shira Tarrant is a World renowned scholar and commentator on gender politics and this statement is in a scholarly publication edited by her, published by Routledge Press , who have a reputation for fact checking.


 * I also think we should mention in the lede that


 * "The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement....."


 * which is from the SPLC reference . The SPLC as you well know is unequivocally reliable in its Intelligence Reports; it has been used by law enforcement and cited by academics. The fact that men’s rights movement and fathers’ rights movement are synonymous is a pretty significant point. A fact I was not aware of, which is a testimony to the remarkably informative nature of the SPLC. They truly are an important and revelationary source.


 * Perhaps most significantly we learn, and I paraphrase from the SPLC source
 * "The Men's Movement includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists. Further more the SPLC say they take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."


 * Ignoring the racist over tones of the final sentence, this information from the SPLC is very significant and surely should be incorporated somewhere in the lede. I hope you will support me in this.


 * CSDarrow (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Sonicyouth86's proposal:


 * "The men's rights movement (MRM) is a strand of the larger men's movement, focused specifically..."

is appropriate for the lede.

Also, men's rights is not the same as father's rights, as was mentioned above, though they are quite related to each other.

A section "Views on men's rights movement" would be appropriate, or possibly the section "Criticism" should be expanded, though "Criticism" sections are not ideal. If nobody objects, I'll remove "human rights movement" from lede.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A058 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 2A02:..A058, Concerning


 * "Also, men's rights is not the same as father's rights, as was mentioned above, though they are quite related to each other."


 * Our personal opinions on this matter is not of interest to Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. The SPLC has declared them the same group. The SPLC are a reliable source and the same article is being cited as reliable in support of other statements in the page. As such we can't but other record the fact that Father's and Men's rights groups are the same; regardless of how we personally feel about this. Similarly the Tarrant reference is a reliable scholarly source that states the Men's Rights Movement is a hate movement, we must record this. Don't you agree?


 * CSDarrow (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with CSDarrow. Other editors have been very clear that we are not allowed to use our own judgement or cherry pick when to follow wikipedia policies. I propose we change the lede to "The men's rights movement (MRM), also known as the father's rights movement, is a hate group consisting of mail-order bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists."Rgambord (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this suggestion at all, which both misrepresents the sources and the arguments made above.
 * Per WP:Undue while the SPLC is a good and notable source, especially for its own attributed opinion on subjects, but sources like this don't trump academic scholarly sources which tend to see the fathers' rights as a separate (but related) men's movement, which emerged from the larger men's rights movement.
 * As I pointed out above the source doesn't say that the men's rights movement includes those interested in mail-order brides etc, but that the "men's movement" does. One could argue that this info should be included on the men's movement page- but only as their attributed opinion, which is all that has been done here, not given in WP's editorial voice.
 * The Tarrant source is discussing the SPLC material and doesn't even say that the MRMis a hate group, but that the SPLC included them in their exposes of such groups. You would need a stronger source to make this point. However, as has also been pointed out above, we know for a fact that the SPLC doesn't and hasn't described the men's rights movement as a hate group. Specifically: "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement".
 * And finally, per WP:LEDE the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Not introduce new (and in this case very questionable) material.
 * To be honest given the past edits and opinions of these editors I doubt very much that they truly want this material included. This appears to be a pointy suggestion and as such is most unhelpful to the development of this artcle.Slp1 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Slp1. I think you are dead wrong on each point. Also WP:GOODFAITH? CSDarrow (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think that the SPLC's opinion should be on men's movement, then? So, you still don't see anything wrong with its inclusion? Nothing about credibility, bias, or the fact that it's an unsubstantiated and vile attack on a group of people? You really don't see a problem here with the way wikipedia editors have been applying the rules to neuter this article (and others concerning men's rights, privilege, and human rights, in general)? You really don't see an issue with defining something by what its detractors pronounce about it? I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time, but only recently have I come to focus on articles concerning human rights. I've noticed a very obvious feminist slant in the application of rules, consensus, and editing across the board on these pages. Before you ask, I see no reason to take any of this to any sort of arbitration or noticeboard, because it's a systematic problem on wikipedia that such noticeboards will not be able to solve, and which none of the editors on here will admit to. It seems the only ones who can see the bias are those who do not share in it.


 * Now, towards the section we are discussing here. Men's rights are, by simple definition, a subset of human rights, and therefore the men's rights movement is a human rights movement. Contrary to your opinion, this doesn't need to be sourced, because we, the editors, are not robots, and we are capable of making basic logical inductions. If you need me to cite a rule, I refer you to WP:IARRgambord (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no reliable source that classifies MRM as a "human rights movement". This has to be removed from the lede.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCC2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe views
The Child custody section ends with a fringe view of a very fringe actor (being the head of a political party that got 0.04% of the vote doesn't make his opinion relevant). I'd suggest removing that from the article. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You deleted a sourced sentence without awaiting consensus. And please refrain from arbitrary removals of people's comments.
 * The problem with the section as I see it is that it contains only two reliable sources that mention the men's rights movement: the Messner book and the article that Rgambord deleted. The Sheldon & Collier article deals with the fathers' rights movement and US Department of Commerce document doesn't mention the mrm. The conference paper ("Second Annual Male Studies Conference") fails WP:RS and doesn't belong in this article. The remaining information is mostly original research that should be removed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with Hobbit and Rgmbord. Also WP:BEBOLD? CSDarrow (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need to wait for consensus. I removed Sonic19's comments which could easily have gotten him banned, and the second edit wasn't a deletion. Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.) Rgambord (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dense", "confused", "People like you disgust me", "you should be ashamed of yourself" . Comments you made about two editors today because they have edited this page. Let's see if the patrolling admins think this is uncivil. Oh and yes, you need to wait for WP:Consensus and no, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR aren't optional and this is why sources  that do not discuss the men's rights movement do not belong in this article.
 * The original wording of Rgambord's comments was . Decide for yourself if my comment would have gotten me banned. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SPLC Criticism
''' (This is a merger of 3 talk sections; please read the talk page before starting a new section to see if the topic is already being discussed) '''

My revert of SPLC addition
The recent addition stating that the SPLC called the MRM a 'misogynistic' movement doesn't appear to be supported by the provided links. The first starts with the qualifier of 'Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims...', so this is not the movement as a whole. The second link is speaking specifically of the 'man-o-sphere', not the MRM. Arkon (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The second link was explicitly about the MRM, the "misogynist" in question was a called a leader of the movement (not a member of the man-o-sphere). It says that only "some" of the men in the movement have legitimate grievances. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading through it, the initial section covers an individual's actions, then coverage in general of websites, some linked to the Men's Rights Movement, some not, then finally coverage of the Men's Rights Movement. Through reading both, it's hard to separate out when they're talking about the Men's Rights Movement as a whole from the behavior of its members/individuals associated with the Men's Rights Movement.  However, I'm inclined to say that the links can be used to support the statements.  However, I would disagree that the SPLC labeling the Men's Rights Movement misogynistic coverage should be in the initial overview blob (typically a summary of the content of the article).  The overall organization of the page is lacking, but for the time being I could see inclusion at the end of the History section with something like "In 2012 the Southern Poverty Laws Center..." to indicate that it's 'recent' history.  It can then be move to the most appropriate section once the organization of the article is improved.  Ismarc (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering the length of that article and the extent of its commentary, it seems odd to single out the fact that they view the MRM as misogynistic to be included. I don't really support that addition, but it is in the source.  If it is included as Ismarc suggests then it probably fits relevant guidelines.  However, I disagree with its placement in the history section as it is not actually part of the history of the MRM and it is not actually an issue that concerns the MRM.  It is more of an outside reaction to the MRM. The section that could come closest to accommodating it is the relation to feminist section.  However, I don't believe SPLC is explicitly feminist so that isn't the best place either.  Perhaps there should be a new section like "public reaction" or something. Yhwhsks (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC has never taken the position that the MRA is a misogynistic movement. Arthur Golwag did in an opinion piece on their site. They have since distanced themselves from the article and Golwag has since moderated his words through another article on their site. Golwag's opinion in isolation is not a significant opinion and would violate WP:UNDUE. Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 21:49, March 10, 2013‎
 * Excellent, please provide the source that indicates the SPLC has distanced themselves from this article. Then we can replace the text, and note that they have distanced themselves subsequently from their previous stance.  Sources and statements they verify are not removed based on your word.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to an article written by the SPLC itself where it says that they did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement. I quote, "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Source:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/ --41.135.6.158 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this section really necessary?
"Criticism

The Southern Poverty Law Center has called it a misogynistic[2][3] movement that "goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations."[3]"

The second paragraph of the article already mentions the SPLC's views on the mens rights movement,it seems redundant to practically say the same thing twice. Metalhead498 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All the content in the WP:LEAD is supposed to also be in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * although the content of the lead could be a condensed version of what is in the body. since it would be hard to condense that content, feel free to expand the content in the body if you can do so without bloating it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why the SPLC is cited at the beginning of the article and within the criticism section also. This appears to be an appeal to authority, and its placement at the beginning of the article provides it more prominence that seems justified. Voodooengineer (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be removed in both places. It is an appeal to authority, and the claim of "misogynistic" violates WP:Label.  Blog posts or statements from self-described "advocacy organizations" have been routinely rejected as reliable sources in this article, and this one should not be an exception. Memills (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Rgambord (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Atleast the wording is quite far-streching: The Southern Poverty Law Center has called it a misogynistic[3][4] movement that "goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations."[4]

The full chapter from the source is: ''Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones) — the so-called “manosphere,” which now also includes a tribute page for Tom Ball (“He Died For Our Children”). While some of them voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic tone that pervades so many.''

I highlighted parts to make a point that the chapter actually is about those websites, blogs and forums, but are they about the MRM as a whole? The report states there are legitimate complaints too, but that there is misogynistic tone in much of those sites. But does this justify saying that the SPLC called it a misogynistic movement as a whole? I think not.

The next SPLC source: ''Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men. Some suggest that ''.

Again I don't see it saying the whole MRM is misogynistic, but that there are misogynistic in the movement, too. For some reason the lead is more accurate in that it says the MRM exhibits that, but the section itself has that far-streching claim. It needs to be edited. Also, as an European Wikipedian I am rather concerned that this article constantly gets too North American centred, obviously the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't comment any particular European MRM's for example. --Pudeo' 15:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized men's right activism as a hate group.. So yes, it is notable. --South19 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You linked the exact same news pieces from which I took the quotes above. And no, I wasn't even contending whether SPLC is notable, it's about what they actually wrote. --Pudeo' 23:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the SPLC did not categorize men's right activism as a hate group. Stop lying that lie.184.167.250.33 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Classified as hate group by SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized men's right activism as a hate group.. [...WP:BDP-violating content removed...] This is important information. --South19 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First, no matter what anyone says, "activism" is not a "group" of any sort. Second, I read the articles you linked to, and they do not say that men's rights groups per se are hate groups.  Indeed, they repeatedly say that there are legitimate concerns raised by men's rights groups.  Where they go wrong is in focusing on the wackos, while ignoring the very issues they admit are legitimate.  If every movement were held to the standard of its looniest people, all movements (yes, including women, LGBT, race, religious, etc), which have always had separatist, violent, and elitist elements, would be labelled hate groups.  SPLC of all groups should know better than to paint everyone with the same brush.  Some individuals react to discrimination in ways that are not defensible, but that doesn't render the discrimination moot.24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to copy this here because it was posted above and I'm not sure it was seen.


 * Here is a link to an article written by the SPLC itself where it says that they did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement. I quote, "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence." Source:


 * http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/ --41.135.6.158 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got nothing to say on the matter, only copying it because it's the same topic, was recently posted in an area where discussion has long since ceased, and received no attention.--v/r - TP 14:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As I noted earlier above, the term "misogynistic" violates WP:Label.
 * Further, this is an opinion piece by an advocacy organization -- this was not published in a secondary or scholarly source. If this qualifies as a legitimate  source, then similar material from MRM websites and magazines would too, and, comments from MRM folks characterizing other groups/organizations as "misandrous" could also be used here.
 * This material from Southern Poverty Law Center should be removed. Memills (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"The SPLC is highly regarded in academic circles" is a grand and easy statement to make, but not so easily verified. The "Intelligence Reports" on the SPLC web site are opinion pieces, in this case by Goldwag and Schlatter; Goldwag is a well known polemicist. There is no evidence they are peer reviewed or fact checked above that of standard editorial oversight. There is nothing to suggest the opinions expressed in the articles are official positions held by the SPLC; just as the views of a columnist are not the official position of a newspaper. The SPLC has a page categorizing hate groups, no MRM organization or person is on it.

Furthermore, I'd suggest the opinions of these sources are not of sufficient weight for inclusion in the article, especially in the lead. It is possible to find just about anyone saying anything, which is what these articles are about. WP:UNDUE is very clear about these issues. Also policy decisions made on other pages concerning the SPLC do not apply here.

Since this dispute is an argument of fact, it can only be resolved by appeal to a neutral authority; in this case to Dispute Resolution Noticeboards WP:DRN. Which is where I'll take it next, and beyond if necessary.

CSDarrow (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am sorry, CSDarrow and Memills, but the above is absolute balderdash. These articles are not blogs or opinion pieces but were published in the Intelligence Report, a quarterly publication of the SPLC, complete with an editorial oversight (including a named editor in chief ). Questions at the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard have repeatedly found the SPLC to be a reliable source of information, particularly for attributed statements. (see for example ). If you want to argue that is not a reliable source then please go to the RSN, and get clarification from there that views about the Intelligence Report and the organization have changed.


 * The views of the SPLC as published by in the Intelligence Report have repeatedly cited (yes positively) by academics and the media   including these very articles about the men's rights movement . It is ridiculous to suggest that the views of the SPLC is not significant on this issue.Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably the following quotes from the Goldwag article are also officially held views of the SPLC?


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


 * "The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women."


 * "Some take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women."


 * By your logic we could incorporate these 'facts' into the page and attribute them to the SPLC.


 * I am reverting your edit. Any further reversions and I start the dispute resolution process. All in this discussion will be invited to participate.


 * CSDarrow (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your argument here? Do you have something to say about reliability or notability or not? Something to counter the links and citations I gave? When you quote the red herrring above do you not know or understand that there is a distinction between the men's rights movement and the men's movement?  Go ahead with seeking dispute resolution if you wish, but you'll have to find that there is a better argument than complete red herrings and straw men.  Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The three SPLC URLs do not support any assertion that the men's rights movement is a "hate group". The hate group designation is very specific, and is reserved for identifiable groups, not whole movements. The SPLC names Alcuin, Boycott American Women, The Counter Feminist, The False Rape Society, In Mala Fide, MarkyMark’s Thoughts, MensActivism, Reddit: Mens Rights, Roosh V, SAVE Services, The Spearhead, and A Voice for Men as hate groups. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think the SPLC named any of them as hate groups. In fact a subsequent SPLC blog says explicitly "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence" . I would oppose any mention of "hate" or "hate group" designation without some very clear sources about this. Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Spl1. So using your sources and logic concerning their reliability we can construct the following:-
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center says the men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists. Further more the SPLC say they take an inordinate interest in extremely young women, or fetishize what they see as the ultra-feminine (read: docile) characteristics of South American and Asian women.


 * I am left with an uneasy feeling here. You'd consider putting that in the lead? I will prepare my submission to the to WP:DRN over the weekend, (unless the disputed content is removed by others). My argument btw is not a Red herring or a Straw man but Reductio ad absurdum.


 * CSDarrow (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is a red herring. Once again, did you actually read the sentences you quoted? Or what I wrote in response?  The sentences you quoted don't connect the men's rights movement to mail order brides, batterers of pickup artists etc etc.   They connect the men's movement to them. So no I won't be suggesting adding this to the lead of this article.
 * As Cailil suggests below and I do above, I think you need to start your dispute resolution at the RSN. I will certainly abide by what their determination. Slp1 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even someone in an ESL program can see the terms are being used interchangeable. CSDarrow (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the insult, I'll just point out that since the two terms aren't interchangeable, no WP editor should dream of making the assumption that they are being used that way. But I'm done with this total red herring and straw man. Please go to RSN and if they agree that the Intelligence Report is a unreliable source, and I'll be happy delete the material. Slp1 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) CSDarrow you'd be better off taking the issue to RSN or dropping it (Memills's removal under WP:LABEL was not correct - the information can be attributed not necessarily removed). The SPLC's reliability as a source has been tested already under Wikipedia's standards. In order to claim it is unreliable you need to change the consensus - this can be done at RSN. However Binksternet is 100% correct here the SPLC don't say the movement is misogynistic they name specific groups. The wording needs to reflect that. I think this needs work. Furthermore threatening people with "dispute resolution" is illogical. Dispute resolution is about resolving, not winning, arguments. Using WP:DRN as a bludgeon, or threat, is a bad way to start such a process--Cailil  talk 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cailil.The page WP:Etiquette makes good reading. CSDarrow (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cailil, I actually disagree with your point about rewording. Binkersnet's point above is not about the misogeny issue but about specific MR groups being named as "hate groups" - which I don't think is actually the case based on the sources I've seen.  What the SPLC says about the misogeny issue is "we did call out specific examples of misogyny", "Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men." "Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations. There are literally hundreds of websites, blogs and forums devoted to attacking virtually all women (or, at least, Westernized ones)". I think "The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized aspects of the American movement for exhibiting misogynistic tendencies" is a pretty accurate summary. Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with CSDarrow (talk. This needs to go to ANI to assess LABEL and UNDUE.
 * Agree with TP (below) -- Slp1, in particular, has had a very quick trigger finger on the Undo Button. Let it ride at least for a few days to see if a compromise or solution can be hashed out here first.  Memills (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * reinsert comment that was deleted by --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Please refrain from commenting on editors' alleged need to "get out more" and their "trigger finger". I assume that you are familiar with the terms of the article probation because you were warned and sanctioned multiple times. Please note that your change was reverted by two different editors and that Slp1 was not one of them.
 * If you believe that the SPLC is an unreliable source you are free to start a new discussion at WP:RS/N. I am willing to add many more reliable sources that describe the mrm or aspects of the mrm as misogynistic if that is what you and other editors want. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jesus fucking Christ people! The lot of you make me want to indef full protect this article.  Quit the damn warring.  So what if the quote exists or doesn't exists for 3 or 4 days while the matter is discussed?  Protected for 3 more days while you finish discussing this.  Does it really matter if the article doesn't look like any of you want it to for a few days?  I understand why KC has been virtually run off.  They're really tired of the constant bickering.--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)