Talk:A Voice for Men/Archive 1

Archive 1

COI/Wikipedian In Residence offer

Dean Esmay

As I am Managing Editor of this publication, it would be better if a neutral Wikipedian were in charge of this page, until someone volunteers to be a neutral editor I will continue to make edits in the spirit of Wikipedia honestly and NPV, however, I will cease making edits and will exclusively use this Talk page for suggestions if others will step forward to be in charge of the page.Dean Esmay (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

David King

As noted, I am affiliated with AVfM (server operations) and declare my COI. I have some experience with running and using MediaWiki, but never on Wikipedia itself — so all guidance is welcome. Like Dean, I will be very conservative with any edits (if any) I make to the article proper, and expect to make most of my suggestions here unless a neutral party suggests I should move a proposal into the article proper. — Strix ^t 14:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A Wehr

I'd be willing to provide dis-engaged proposed edits for this page. I propose organization of this page into a similar format to ideology or literary works pages, and I propose the criticisms and proponents section outline the background from which their criticism comes (ideological leanings, the grounds for their criticism or support -- including relevant quotes).

Unfortunately, Some citations I would provide both to support and refute criticism would be avoiceformen website. This needs to be removed from the spam blacklist in order for me to construct fair criticism/support sections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm biased but even though I don't own the site I've bee told I can't ask for it to be removed. The historical reasons for the blacklist don't make sense in the modern context of the site (it was a fairly obscure blog when it was enacted). The article can also be whitelisted so links to AVfM can appear here, but I think someone other than me should ask.21:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

1. In the info-box at top reads "Leader - Paul Elam". This should be changed to Founder or CEO, as the leadership of the org is not Paul Elam alone but a coalitian of administrative leaders working together with him. Moreover, leader has an unsuitable Montipythonesque or even North Korean ring to it.

Elam's title is Publisher and it's been updated to read that.Dean Esmay (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

2. The lead reference to AVfM in media-sources starts out with negative press; "A Voice for Men has been noted as a controversial and even hateful or misogynist publication by The New York Times...etc". I suggest that sentence this be retained but placed under this one; "[Media] coverage featuring A Voice for Men and its staff have included a segment on Huffington Post Live[9] and Chill Media[10], the Tom Leykis Show[11], the Chat Hartman show[12], Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio[13], and The Register.[14]"

I agree and think that it should be moved to its own section. Brian95620 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also the case that there are responses by AVfM to some of the negative press, challenging them for what we see as inaccuracies. Since we are blacklisted (an appropriate word I think) I don't know how to address that, but in the Wikipedia spirit it appears to be important to have as much information as the blacklisters will allow.Dean Esmay (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It does tend to leave it a bit one sided. I asked for clarification on what the best way to handle it was, but was unable to get any. Brian95620 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

3. In this sentence "A Voice for Men has been noted as a controversial and even hateful or misogynist publication by The New York Times" - "hateful or misognynist publication" could be shortened to "misogynist publication" because women are the alleged subjects of the hate. 202.173.170.85 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit redundant and I agree it should be shortened to misogynist. Brian95620 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well we do occasionally also get accused of being white supremacist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and other such rubbish, all of it patent nonsense. Perhaps a link to some of the videos would be done will make it past the Wikipedia censors, since the video materials are not on AVfM?Dean Esmay (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Move to Live365 from BlogTalk

AVfM has moved off BlogTalk and onto Live365, a bigger platform, and will soon have all its old archives available either there or available through other sources such as iTunes. Someone may want to at least update it to say we're on Live365 now and not BlogTalk. That move happened a few weeks ago, I forget the precise date but suggested phrasing would probably be "in early 2014." Dean Esmay (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Article probation (12/19)

The article has been placed on probation. One "problem" to whatever extent it is a problem, is that its starting contributions were by me, although Wikipedia rules do allow this. Nevertheless we do need someone not-me to continue most of the editing. The flag about not having sufficient referenced material is hard to know what to do with, since whatever is considered not-verifiable is not specified. Will whoever made this assertion please specify?Dean Esmay (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not associated with AVfM in anyway shape or form. I consider this article to a fair encyclopedic representation of the web site and I strongly support the existence of this page on Wikipedia. This is given that fine tuning might be in order. The fact that the URL for this site is blocked for use on Wikipedia is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project and free speech in general. CSDarrow (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, it would be great if you and others would step up to the plate to help improve the article. I don't care if I'm considered non-objective, it's obvious as a stone that AVfM is a significant and notable web site. Any edits you and other genuinely neutral Wikipedians make would be great. Dean Esmay (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Site URL in infobox

The site URL has been removed from the infobox on the grounds that AVfM's website has (reasonably, in the circumstances) been in the spam blacklist since 2011, apparently because of vandalism and/or inappropriate references in BLP articles. There have been a number of attempts to get it delisted, most recently in June 2013. This is neither the time nor place to rehash whether AVfM should be in the blacklist and, although I don't think there would be any such abuse from AVfM staff ourselves, obviously we cannot control what other editors do. Given my obvious COI, the suggestion made there to whitelist seems perfectly reasonable to me.

As far as the URL in the infobox goes: Since the original blacklisting was an anti-abuse measure, and given that an organisation's URL is rather pertinent to an article about that organisation, why is it not appropriate to include the site URL from the infobox? (I am new to the WP community, and this is a genuine question.) — Strix ^t 01:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, a spam blacklisting for abuse by people we didn't even know about (and would ban from the site if we did know about it) has now turned into a "scarlet letter." This is being discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist if any neutral party wishes to make an observation. Dean Esmay (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What Dean mentions above is now archive at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/12#www.avoiceformen.com for those interested. Ranze (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting. By reading about this, it seems that one can get "any" site blacklisted by using that site domain in his/her attack? So if I hate some site I just use that in abusive way then log in with different account and suggest blacklisting, because an obvious abuse have occured and then this Amatulic comes to declare "This looks like a clear-cut easy case" and site is added to the black list. And it is completely irreversable it seems, it's is permanent crime record without any trial or proofs. It's like someone would spray paint my name all around the city, and then police would come to arrest me and make me pay the cleaning and fines, because I clearly was at fault. --91.153.113.246 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Women and feminism; positive advocacy and negative anti-feminism

I would like to at least propose a section for the article that deals with with AVfM's views on two subjects: the distinction between women (as a demographic) and feminism (as an ideology), and to explain why we see anti-feminism as a constructive part of our advocacy for the needs and interests of men and boys (such as equality before the law, especially in family and criminal courts). Note, I'm keenly aware of the need to maintain NPOV and encyclopaedic value, and I specifically mean for this to be informative rather than promotional.

Because of COI, I am hesitant to know how to approach this. By asking the question, I have effectively requested that somebody write such a section; should I briefly bullet point what I would like to see included, or is it worth my making an attempt to write an NPOV passage for consideration on a sandbox page? Would a neutral editor or admin be willing to offer guidance? — Strix ^t 02:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Strix, I recommend you create such a section here and leave it for other editors to assess and add to the entry as they see fit. This area is a neutral area and your proposed edit could profitably be placed here if you are interested in writing it. 202.173.170.85 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Voice_for_Men

It was recommended a "criticism" section be introduced, so I did just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koen23468 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unfortunately it seems this page has become a target for vandalism. Perhaps due to this Dailycaller or something like it. Nonsensical unsourced criticism "re-defining any and all feminism as hate speech", feminism is a group of people and as such can only be a hate group, not hate speech. As that and all other edits were unsourced and in violation of the NPOV, it was removed. Brian95620 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section was agreed upon above, is part of the proper formatting, is not a violation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism policy, and as this page is barely more than a page long, hardly hiding anything. It may however be more appropriate to rename that section "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". Brian95620 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Week

Re this bit:

'A Voice for Men has sometimes been accused of being controversial or misogynist publication by...The Week

Citing The Week makes no sense in this context - as anyone who reads it knows, The Week has no significant editorial content of its own; it is merely a digest of other publications. So it doesn't accuse anyone of anything. 90.217.251.161 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re the whole section:

In following up the links to the New York Times and Souther Poverty Law Center -- neither of these articles accuses AVFM of being a misogynistic publication. This is the only mention of AVFM in the NYT article: "Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny"

The article is not about AVFM, and it is disingenuous to cite it. Further, the other cited articles have seen a fair bit of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.65.12 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The Times Editorial Board and The Southern Poverty Law center did not themselves make such an accusation. They published articles that may have. The attribution should not be to the organizations, but to the articles and their authors. Memills (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First International Conference on Men's Issues

I removed this content under WP: Crystal, it's a projected conference some time in June which will have at most 300 people at the conference. One of the requirements for future events to be mentioned is that the subject matter has to have sufficiently wide interest. Right now the only interest I'm seeing in this conference is from Mens Rights groups, and those sympathetic to Men's Rights groups. As such this conference does not belong in this article. After the conference we can possibly add information about it if we have reliable sources about the subject matter, but right now it's inclusion is a violation of WP: Crystal. It also appears to violate WP: PROMO. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO, it should be readded after the event if it gets notable press coverage --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it falls under WP:CRYSTAL as it meets the requirement for an exemption(the event is notable and almost certain to take place), however it may fall under WP:PROMO. Brian95620 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-transgender movement

The sentence added which says that AVFM is part of the Anti-transgender movement is not sourced, and appears to be a bunch of Original Research. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, the writing is= The website is also a part of the anti-transgender movement, charging that male-to-female transsexuals are 'self-hating' men and regarding transgender therapy as forms of 'mutilation'.

I had a source referring to anti-transgender content but it seems to have been garbled and lost in editing. For right now, it seems perfectly reasonable to remove the writing in the interim.{{subst:03:52, 19 May 2014‎ CoffeeWithMarkets}}

At least three different transgender authors have written for the site, and site management consistently maintains that it rejects transphobia. Examples could be linked if this page were removed from the blacklist or at least whitelisted. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of rape, false allegations of rape

False allegations of rape would also be included in allegations of rape, to use only allegations of rape removes the intended meaning. While its true that AVFM has published on topics including both rapes that have not yet been decided in a court of law and laws involving allegations of rape(rape shield laws), the use of false allegations of rape covers cases like Brian Banks and the Duke Lacrosse. It might be more accurate to put in both. Brian95620 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should probably put allegations of rape and false allegations of rape. The Paul Elam quote "should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true" and the misinformation on website concerning the frequently of false allegations puts them in a position where they could be considered as being against any allegations of rape in a legal setting, true or not --31.205.21.96 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This article sets out Elams opinions on rape trials quite clearly (archive.today link as AVFM is blackllisted) dead link] --2.221.89.130 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Said article does not set out Elam's opinions on rape trials clearly at all. It has been repeatedly explained as angry satire. Elam's serious opinions appear in several articles which can easily be read on the site.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The recent edits by an IP [1], [2], and [3] are not neutrally worded, and are POV in their presentation. The allegations of straw-feminism aren't supported by sources, the change from "less critical" to "less In-depth", The addition of "while promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance. For this reason, Wikipedia does not allow links to A Voice for Men.", and other changes are in violation of [WP: NPOV]. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It calls Marc Lepine a feminist hero, and frequently assures us that the worst of 2nd wave radical feminism represents feminism as a whole, facts any basic google search will reveal. An article that refers to empty headed narcissists begging to be raped, another uses the more diplomatic term of "estrogen based parasites", while claiming the KillAllMen hashtag was literally calling for the end of all men - do I need to go on? Claiming this blog is simply advocating for men's issues is a violation of NPOV, and similar to claims the Klan merely promotes the best of white culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What you need to do IP is to edit in a NPOV way, while you may have valid claims about the article structure and it's neutrality what you are doing is edit warring, and adding material that violates core content policies such as WP: NPOV and WP: V. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AVfM does not consider Marc LePine a hero, and a single article sarcastically calling him a hero to feminists should not be used to claim this is the editorial position of the site, which it is not. Dean Esmay (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources?

Can someone provide a reliable source for the following claim:

Its editorial slant is strongly critical of both feminism and conservative traditionalist views of men and women, masculinity and femininity, charging both feminists and conservatives of being actively misandrist in their mindset, while promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance.

While it's obvious that A Voice for Men opposes feminism, it's not self-evident that A Voice for Men criticizes conservative traditionalist views of anything or that it claims that feminists and conservatives are "promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance". There are some sources in the men's rights movement article that point to rather strong ties between the men's rights movement and (neo-) conservatism. Thus, the statement quoted above is unsourced and in contradiction to RS in the MRM article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. My unclear sentence structure was at fault. My point was that the kind of "A Voice for Men" articles calling for the release of all accused rapist/mocking rape victims are often called satire by the men's rights movement. Although they don't meet the definition of satire (one article victim blames in order to protest being accused of victim blaming when giving advice, and victim blaming seems to be the entire goal, since there's literally nothing else - another makes up a system of law where accused rapists are automatically guilty, in order to create sympathy for accused rapists), it's more difficult to refute frequent claims from the MRM like these http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27bpu8/why_rmensrights_should_distance_itself_from_paul - that they're a form of extreme speech that's meant to counter what they see as a societal hatred of men. A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam used to post there, and wasn't shy about explaining his motives. I'd link to A Voice for Men itself, if it was allowed. 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on this are easily available on the AVfM site itself. Including articles that reference every one of these subjects directly where citation is being requested. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I just reverted an edit by an IP, adding something to the lead about "mocking rape culture." As they stood, the edits were not neutral, and so I removed them. However, based on personal knowledge, the allegations do have merit; it should also be kept in mind that as an overwhelmingly male society, Wikipedia needs to take extra care with such as article. To come to the point, the allegations of sexism are prominent enough that there have got to be good sources on the topic. We should attempt to find such; if there aren't any, the current version would be additionally strengthened. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I've done the research, and included the references you requested. Unfortunately, someone keeps reverting my edits, in order to spin the controversy so that it appears feminists simply don't want any criticism. Edit: They've just claimed analysis the Southern Poverty Law center and Huffington Post don't count as sources, or failed to read the links. Someone really wants this page to be an ad for the site. Also, I really need to sign up for an account. You sent me a message telling me how to sign my identity here, but the window crashed and I don't know how to access it. 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube as a source

Youtube is not RS for the purpose of this article, and I don't believe Paul Elam's appearances on talk radio are notable enough for inclusion in this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with this, Youtube is not reliable as it is currently used, but youtube itself is not defacto unreliable. In order for a video to be reliable it needs to be posted by the organization making the claim. In essence if we say group X says this Y about other group Z, and the source is a youtube video, we need to make sure that the youtube video is being posted by group X. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue arises because there is no way to ensure the authenticity of an account on youtube. If the youtube video were linked to by the official website of the magazine, then we could perhaps use it. Also, using a video raises OR issues, because any summary that is not a quote would be OR, and any quote is liable to be cherry-picked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The accounts in question have been linked to by the organization in question, something a quick google search can prove, and while I agree that it might be better to have a direct link to the source at the site, thats not possible since it is blacklisted. As it stands these secondary sources are the best possible for this article. If there is any question about the authenticity of a particular source, that can be discussed individually. Brian95620 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The talk radio segments are WP:UNDUE and the youtube video cited for "legal paternal surrender" is by Karen Straughan who is speaking on behalf of herself, not AVFM. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that this is the opinion of a prominent writer, I linked to a second source for it from another prominent staff member, but agreed that personal blog is not a good source. You have failed to rebut my points, failed to give a reason why these are unduly weighted, and continue to try to move the goalposts. I am not going to continue to argue as you reach from one policy to another in an attempt to find something that agrees with you. Until or unless a time comes when AVFM is not blacklisted, the only reliable way to source them remains third party hosting like youtube. Brian95620 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. Elam's appearances on talk radio are not notable, and Straughan is speaking on her on behalf, not AVFM's. If she had a video titled "The Positions of A Voice For Men on _________" that might be a different issue. As such, the current video listed should only be used as RS for an article on Karen Straughan (and even then it might not be appropriate). PearlSt82 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That policy deals with unrelated, or barely related material being giving undo space on a page. The example given is a flat earth segment on the earth page. That interview is of the owner of AVFM talking about AVFM and is encompassed in a single sentence. That policy does not apply to this. Karen, a member of AVFM staff, produced a video series on that subject that was then endorsed by AVFM hosting it. If AVFM had put up a disclaimer saying it was not their opinion you might have a point, but I haven't been able to find one after hours of researching this. Please stop removing information from the page until a consensus has been reached. Brian95620 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the talk radio segments, they are absolutely undue for inclusion. Their inclusion gives undue weight to non-notable appearances to try to balance out criticism which comes from reliable, notable sources. In regards to consensus, three editors have stated they feel this material is not appropriate for inclusion here, and you are the only one pushing for it. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I'd like to address the idea of "Until or unless a time comes when AVFM is not blacklisted, the only reliable way to source them remains third party hosting like youtube" specifically - this is not accordance with any policy. When there are not reliable sources for a subject due to the blacklist, the solution is not to bring in unreliable sources. If there is an article on AVFM that is appropriate for the inclusion in this article, you can make a request at the Spam whitelist page to have it be included in this article. Given that this is the AVFM article, I think the only place that the whitelist would apply for AVFM is here. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how a youtube video is a good source in this context. Generally references at this level should be verifiable (e.g. news reports that are edited for publication, academic papers that rely on references), whereas here we have a personal video that is edited for spin --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AVfM International Conference on Men's Issues

They had their conference recently, a major event that deserves a heading of its own in the entry. Lots of news sources to back it up. 124.150.87.201 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd describe a conference with 100 attendees as a "major" event, but its certainly gotten news coverage in RS and I think would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It was covered on a few news outlets but the coverage was almost exclusively negative (that is, not counting an article on USAtoday written by Glenn Reynolds - the wife of conference speaker Dr. Helen and a pretty biased source due to this) so it would be difficult to summarise the conference without drawing heavily on these criticisms, something that would be unpopular with the MRAs that edit here. Anyway, here are all of the reliable sources that I've found if anybody feels up for it: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I feel that the MSNBC, SPLC and Time articles are particularly thorough and well-written --2.221.89.130 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms should definitely be worked into the article with proper attribution as its a common thread that runs through all of them. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I get your point, if you feel up to writing them then we could write it into the article in an appropriate manner. If it were one or two articles then the argument that they are biased may have some weight. The fact that so many do proves that they are distinct problems with the event --2.221.89.130 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Further source (and also a pretty good summary of Elam) [15] and one more [16] --2.221.89.130 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Only ref's 7,13,14 look suitable for inclusion. Arkon (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you picked some of the better articles. I think 16 is pretty well written too and puts the event into perspective - however, it is not a news outlet. In case the numbers change, that is, in order, MSNBC, Washington Post, Time and RHRealityCheck. I figured I'd collect them all together anyway, some are probably more opinion pieces but they cover the narrative of events when read together --2.221.89.130 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is also pretty good [17] --2.221.89.130 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

One more source [18] --90.200.211.46 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Helen Smith was not a presenter, she only spoke at a separate press conference. Also, AVfM offered specific responses to much of the negative coverage, challenging assertions made by reporters, and also featured complete verbatim transcripts of all presentations. If this conference is going to be referenced, the most authoritative source would be those videos and transcripts, all of which are online. I would suggest getting the avfm domain whitelisted and the transcripts be referenced so that readers do not merely see what is reported but can view the entire conference for themselves. It is, after all, free online. Dean Esmay (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

White Ribbon

The recent edits on AVfM's opening of its own Whiteribbon.org site as an "imposter" site are a violation of NPOV policy; this does not accurately reflect the site's statement. I suggest AVfM response to these allegations be allowed somehow on this site to reflect what AVfM's stated position is, which is that White Ribbon is being used dishonestly by other organizations to spread false information on domestic violence, that the whiteribbon.org site clearly states that it's owned by AVfM, and that the White Ribbon has been used by multiple sources and is not trademarked, and thus, any allegations of trying to fool the public are nonsense. Again, I'm only Wikimedian In Residence here but AVfM's rebuttal of these claims should be allowed in some fashion. I am open to suggestions on what to do about that. Whitelisting the site and allowing a response by AVfM certainly seems justified to me. Dean Esmay (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for rewording the paragraph I am open to ideas. I will be rewording it as well as I can and reposting it. The suggestions you have made so far would not be acceptable as they would violate NPOV. You are essentially suggesting that this article should slander an organization that existed for 23 years prior to AVfM's site, which is obviously unacceptable. More of the stated intentions of the .org site can be worked in, but since ALL RS have been critical of the site and have made it clear that the site is seen as an imposter site intended to divert funds and attention away from an established organisation, that would have to be included as well. I can see that you have suggested on multiple occasions that you would like for AVfM to be whitelisted, but at this stage it is not going to happen so you'll have to be more creative with your suggestions. The issue of trademark is something for the lawyers to discuss and has nothing to do with the article. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Being the person who did the revert I would be careful of calling some of those sources used reliable sources. Two of the sources are from David Futrelle's blog, and that is not a reliable source at all. What's more the other three are biased opinion pieces. They can be reliable for their opinion, but not assertion of facts. What's more, from what I see from the whiteribbon page itself, the organization is almost completely run by Paul Elam, and you have to be careful of running afoul of WP: BLPGROUP. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that 2 of the sources could be considered unreliable, but some others are reliable. I have some assistance in reworking it and I will be rolling out a revised version in the next day or so. I am curious as to why you removed the section wholesale as opposed to editing it in a way that you would have believed acceptable? Surely you are not unfamiliar with WP:DNB. It is seriously harsh to simply erase the wrok someone has done as opposed to collaborating nicely - your move was hostile. Paul Elam does not have a biography page, nor is his biography listed on this page, so WP: BLP is not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul Elam doesn't need a biography page to be covered by BLP, and BLP can apply if the organization cannot be separated from its individual members, that's the point of WP: BLPGROUP. I am familiar with WP: DNB and I am also familiar with WP: BRD, and in this case you made a bold change, I reverted, and we discussed. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Elam cannot be separated from the organisation. He has only a cursory mention as the founder. Also, he is careful to declare that some of his statements are satire and not necessarily representative of the movement. BLP does not apply here any more than it would any other article about any other organisation that was founded by a person who is still living. You're suggesting special treatment for him above and beyond what is to be expected on any article Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, however from the website's about page "This website is owned and operated by Paul Elam". He very much puts his name on the site, and we have to be careful about how we portray content about that site. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make BLP apply here. You can try to shoehorn all you like, but the shoe just doesn't fit. We do not have to give the same care to a website that we would give to a BLP Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliably sourced info on the campaign described as "impostor campaign" to white ribbon would not be BLP violation, if neutrally worded and reliably sourced, and it is on topic for this article. Voice for Men's response to such reliably sourced criticism would also be on topic and appropriate, if neutrally worded and reliably sourced.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Paul Elam his real name?

Just realized that Elam is Male spelled backwards. Which makes me wonder if that's his real name, or a nom de plume/nom de guerre he's adopted. If it is his real name, it'd certainly be an odd coincidence. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. Elam is an actual surname, see Matt Elam, Jack Elam, Joseph Barton Elam, Abram Elam, Katrina Elam, etc. Anything to suggest that its a pseudonym should be coming from a RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Be wary of citing references

I just went through a list of references which allegedly describe this site as being either controversial or misogynist, and I could not find statements in them supporting that interpretation.

I kept these references (now improved with proper dates and authors) in place, and included some brief quotes from them where the web-site is described. The adjectives actually used in those quotes have replaced the controversial and misogynist descriptors, which I have removed until they can be properly sourced.

If someone wants to add these back, please do as I have done and cite a quote from the article properly which demonstrates the site being described this way. --Ranze (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this because most of these quotes are taken out of context. You absolutely cannot use the word "collegial" to describe how the SPLC views AVFM in that article.PearlSt82 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion is an inappropriate response, you are looking for excuses to remove information. If you take issue with the term collegial then you are free to replace it with something else from the article, but it should be from the article, not just made-up. To appease your concern I will attempt to replace that with something more descriptive. --Ranze (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still completely inappropriate as it cherry picks various words in the article and completely misses the point of what the articles are trying to say. It is still a complete misrepresentation of all the sources and a clear attempt to whitewash AVFM's publicity. All these sources discuss misogyny and the controversial nature of AVFM's publications. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing I did to cherry-pick was find statements in the articles directly about the site and ignore statements made about other things. It is not for us to decide underlying points, only to convey what the articles directly state. I believe I did add some criticism from those sources so I would not call it a white-wash. In response to your concern and highlighting though (via searching the initialisms, something I didn't do) more criticism from the sources has been added to the page.

Discussing misogyny is not enough, it must call the site itself misogynistic, evidence must be supplied. If it is called controversial, cool, please provide a quote including the word 'controversial' from every single reference. It seems to me that solely focusing on the term controversial or misogyny is itself cherry-picking only negative things though, so I think instead we should provide a collection of all things said (about the site) from each source and not give one kind of statement priority over another. Ranze (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference vandalism

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=636485708 I believe the reversion of PearlSt82 is a biased vandalism of this article. Pearl has removed details from the references and made the sourcing of this article vague, while we are trying to improve how this article is referenced. Pearl has also added back false statements which I removed.

The references in question do not uniformly accuse AVFM as being controversial or misogynist. I provided actual quotes which support what the sites actually. Pearl is not only injecting original research, but also mistaken research.

This article clearly needs oversight if edits like this are allowed to persist. I will be requesting oversight. --Ranze (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets see. The SPLC source was described as presenting the AVFM as "collegial" (the article says that Elam took a "collegial tone at first" to the initial SPLC article but then goes on to outline the specific issues dealing with misogyny and violence). Theweek article talks about the misogyny at AVFM and is appropriately sourced as written - "influential" is inappropriate here as it is an inaccurate summary of the article's points. Exact passage: Rather than just offering a platform for misogynistic rants, AVFM, Crimes Against Fathers, and other MRM communities are now on the offensive, creating sites to post photos and contact information of women they claim falsify accusations in rape, pedophilia, and divorce trials. Same with Macleans and the word "popular", example passage: After a similar men’s rights event, organized by CAFE in April, there was a similar clash of protesters, and afterwards A Voice for Men posted a video from the event. In the clip, a red-haired woman is reading an article about the shared goals of feminism and men’s rights, while swearing at those who interrupted her. The video quickly reached over 100,000 views; hundreds of comments flooded in from men’s rights activists, threatening to beat, rape and murder the woman in the video. The woman, Charlotte (who is using a pseudonym for safety reasons) says that men’s rights activists disseminated her personal information, including what they believed to be her home address, and sent her hundreds of violent, graphic and sexualized threats, which included personal details such as her dog’s name and her favourite karaoke bar.. The Daily Beast source details misogynistic content posted by AVFM. Example passage: However, there is a significant disconnect between what MRM leaders say when accused of misogyny and the often-misogynistic content they are willing to write and publish. Much of this content appears as angry fist-shaking. Recently, for example, AV4M’s Jason Gregory posted an open letter to all women that said, amongst other things, “We don’t need you in the house anymore, so get the f**k out… Perhaps you should consider making yourself useful as something other than a sandwich-maker and create a meaningful existence for yourself.” and huffpo source uses the word misogyny several times to describe the MRM's outlook. Describing these sources as "collegial", "influential", "popular", "the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website", "and involved with less progressive elements", as opposed to what was originally written (misogynist and controversial) is absolutely misrepresenting what these sources say. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: Would be nice if this was spaced out, I will offer that courtesy. Hope you don't mind but I am bolding the publication names in your post to allow for better reading in relation to these bullets:

• I fixed the 'collegial' wording from SPLC by making it more thorough, if you take issue with what I quoted or how I paraphrased what was quoted, that does not mean you should revert the ENTIRE edit, that's ridiculous and excessive. Please just work on improving it. By reverting this, you are restoring false data, misrepresenting those sources, as I will explain regarding your other claims. The problem here is that a source is supposedly claiming something is "controversial" or "misogynist" so every source in that list MUST claim 1 of the 2 about the site, and you must demonstrate how it does so.
• TheWeek DID call the site influential, you are obscuring the truth by removing that part. TheWeek did not call the site misogynistic, it implied that it provided a platform for misogynistic rants, that is different, we must represent the meaning properly. I will restore 'influential' but expand it by also adding the 'platform' part. You are noticing parts I did not notice, that is good, just like me noticing something you did not. Co-operatively we can better represent those sources in a fair manner.
• The Macleans excerpt you provide does not call the site controversial or misogynist, I am not sure why you used it.
• The Daily Beast excerpt is not caling AVFM misogynist, it is particularly referring to someone named Jason Gregory. A comment on a single poster is not a comment on the entire site.
• what HuffPo says about MRM is irrelevant, the statement must be about AVFM

What was originally written, whether it presents what sources say accurately or not, should be supported by evidence through direct links to quotes. My data was directly linked to quotes, so it belongs here, and I will be restoring it.

Feel free to add additional ideas from these references though, I will take the initiative of adding some data you have brought to my attention, but that does not warrant removing the information I added which is part of those references too. I believe if we add what jumps out to both of us that collectively we will represent them better.

I hope you will like the improvements I made to Tbe Week, Maclean's and Daily Beast, I hope perhaps we can agree that what I have done with those two is a step in the right direction. My research was sloppy, when statement-mining I just searched 'voice' thinking it would turn up all relevant quotes. I was too dense at the time to search for 'AVFM' or AV4M' which would have turned up the later statements you located.

Regarding the Charlotte issue which is discussed by Maclean's: all this says in relation to AVFM is that they posted a video of her, it doesn't claim the site is controversial or misogynist, far as I can see. If you believe otherwise, please provide some statements.

I have added those quotes to the references too, and incorporated them into a broader paraphrase of the reference content.

Besides Week/Maclean's/Beast though, if you believe these other sites say something about either controversiality or misogyny, first please decide which of the two you are arguing for (or if you mean both) Secondly, please find excerpts which talk specifically about the site (not about MRM) and interpret them reasonably.

This has to be done for:

• Huffington Post
• New York Times
• SPLC

You made solid arguments for only 3 of the 6 sources we are discussing being expanded, awaiting the second half. Ranze (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that you admit you are "statement mining" and not reading the entire article - you're looking for a specific conclusion and drawing that from words that happen to be in the article. The sentences should accurately reflect what the RS says. For the SPLC source, it is inaccurate to boil the point of the whole article down to AVFM being "initially collegial-toned until later". This is a very minor point in the article and mentioning it as the sole citation for it certainly violates WP:UNDUE. For the NYT source, it says Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny. - I don't know how you can pretend this doesn't support the text "misogyny". The huffpo source is primarily about the controversial nature of AVFM. Right now the sentence reads: A Voice for Men has been described by writers as a Manosphere blog[1] being deeply misogynist,[3] containing anti-feminist hostility,[4] initially collegial-toned until later[5] an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive[6] a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter,[7] reviled by feminist bloggers, the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website (light-years ahead of New York Times in one area) led by John Hembling with female editors, quality female writers, and an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content[8] and involved with less progressive elements."[9] which is a completely unreadable run-on sentence, full of WP:UNDUE language. While its better representative of the sources than before, I still don't see how its better than "misogynistic and controversial" which accurately summarize the sources in two words, not a handful of run-on clauses. PearlSt82 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have read this post first before replying below. I agree with everything PearlSt82 says here and I think "misogynistic and controversial" is better than what I wrote. Ca2james (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pearl has posted some bad-intended seeming comments, I expect you to address the following criticism if you are going to throw yourself into that boat.

The problem with M and C or C and M is that to apply sources collectively to that phrase, each one needs to say that, and that is not what I found.

Pearl I never said I did not read the entire articles, I read them all in full. My use of the -find- function was done subsequently after that since I do not perfectly memorize what I read, to help find where things were said about the site.

Your accusation that I am looking for a specific conclusion is unwarranted, please apologize for that rudeness. The only thing I specifically looked for was the terms the references were supposed to support (controv and misog) and when I could not find them, I looked for the site name itself, to see if there was anything at all to warrant the reference remaining, to support a new factual statement.

If not for the collegial statement, the SPLC article would not have mentioned AVFM directly at all, so if you found what I did locate to be lacking consequence, you could simply delete it and the SPLC source.

The NYT source only states anti-feminist hostility, the if-not statement about outright-misogyny is not NYT saying they engage in misogyny.

The HuffPo source is not currently included as a reference for -controversial- applying to AVFM, so I was right to call that into question and re-appropriate that reference by applying it to a real statement.

That said, I now realize I should have done some quote brackets until we could figure how to reword phrases accurately.

Yup, it looked ugly, which is why I made a section about that, but ugliness is not the worst thing in the world...

While its better representative of the sources than before

I still don't see how its better than "misogynistic and controversial"

You answered your own question. Accuracy is more important than prettiness. As ugly as my run-on clauses were, they were accurate summaries. The two-words you keep defending were not, because some of the references did not use either of the terms to refer to the site. Too much personal interpretation was being done, they were too distant from the sources. --Ranze (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, your language is not at all more accurate than what was written initially ("misogynist and controversial"). PearlSt82 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You just said it is better-represenative, sounds like more-accurate to me. Things have been arranged so that only the source calling the content misogynist (cosmo) is listed next to that word. I assumed good faith that NYT called it controversial and left that there since I didn't feel like checking on your work yesterday. 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant better representative when compared to your initial edits, not compared to what was written initially ("misogynist and controversial"). PearlSt82 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh removals

This is the paragraph removed here:

A Voice for Men features regular articles on subjects impacting men's and boys' issues, including education, circumcision, homelessness, rape, false allegations of rape, domestic violence, allegations of domestic violence, promoting financial abortions, paternity fraud, cultural misandry, media bias, criticism and satire of what it claims to be modern feminist positions and cultural conservatives. It runs several radio shows including AVfM News and Activism, Honeybadger Radio, The Voice of Europe, and Revelations with Erin Pizzey.

I think it would be good to break down this content into points to see which can be reliably sourced and restored and which should not be.

The first sentence can be broken down into a couple assertions:

• that AVFM features articles on 13 example subjects
• that those subjects impact male issues
• that the articles about these subjects are "featured" or "regular"

I would suggest going with the first bullet point. Presumably for each topic we should include a reference point showing evidence that there has been an article about that subject on the site. Whether these individual issues are addressed "regularly" and whether they are an 'impact' would be secondary/tertiary consideration.

I would like some input on what would be an acceptable refereence. My first instinct is to think "okay, just link to an article about that subject on the site" or "link to the category about that subject which would make a list of several articles". But I am concerned that such references might be rejected as too primary.

To support that the site has published an article on a topic, would we need to find a claim about that on another reference?

Also of concern is the last sentence, which is an entirely separate point. It regards 4 different radio shows allegedly run by AFVM. While I am aware of all 4, and do believe the site runs them, I would like input on how to properly evidence these facts. Would linking to the radio show's page be sufficient? Or is that too primary? Or would a newspaper have to report on the radio show and claim it is affiliated with AVFM as a seconary ref? --Ranze (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:RS. Primary sources, such as a radio program, aren't enough to support statements. Reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles are required to support additions to the article. Primary sources can be added as well as secondary sources but those secondary sources are required.

To that end, I've removed much of the radio stuff because it's just a list of some programs with no critical analysis or discussion of those programs. Bare mention of the subject doesn't make for a reliable source. Ca2james (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty-up needed

Although I have now improved the 2nd paragraph so that it only makes statements based on the references, it now looks kind of ugly. I am wondering if anyone could possibly re-arrange it or re-word it (while keeping accuracy intact) so that it flows a bit bettter. Here is the current state:

A Voice for Men has been described by writers as a Manosphere blog[1] being deeply misogynist,[3] containing anti-feminist hostility,[4] initially collegial-toned until later[5] an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive[6] a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter,[7] the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content[8] and involved with less progressive elements.[9]

Or if I break it into points based on the reference summaries:

A Voice for Men has been described by writers as

1. a Manosphere blog[1]
2. being deeply misogynist,[3]
3. containing anti-feminist hostility,[4]
4. initially collegial-toned until later[5]
5. an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive[6]
6. a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter,[7]
7. the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content[8]
8. involved with less progressive elements.[9]

There may be a better grouping than present order to make these flow better, or minor variations in phrasing. Accuracy is more important than readability, so this content should be retained, and statements should remain linked to references, but overall it just seems jumbled. Rather than an ongoing list, if this could be broken into separate sentences (perhaps based on any commonalities people see in the ideas I have found expressed in these references) then it would be less of a mess.

Although "x sites say it is controversial or misogynist" was simple and good-flowing, it was unmexact, blatently false in many cases, and blatent name-dropping. Links to Wikipedia articles about news sources belong in the references, which should be listed alongside the statements. --Ranze (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good additions, you are doing good work --5.81.50.152 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This information should be presented as a paragraph, not as a list, and it needs some serious punctuation help. Some of the phrases are direct quotes without quotation marks and so are WP:COPYVIOs - putting a reference isn't enough: if you use a direct quote it must be in quotation marks. Reference [6] is incomplete.

Finally, some of those statements make no sense. The following phrases are problematic:

• initially collegial-toned until later - this makes no sense. Also, it's referring to a single incident mentioned once and including it is WP:UNDUE.
• an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive -most of this is actually OK, except for the "now on the offensive" part. It's unclear and appears to be referring again to a single situation.
• a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter - again, most of it is fine but the "has announced fund-raising for a shelter" part has no bearing on the way the site has been described.
• the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content - again the first part is fine but the secind part - "with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content" doesnr flow or make sense in this context so should be removed. It's clearer and more accurate to say that others have said that others have said thatthe site posts deeply misogynistic content. Which is covered by another point.
• involved with less progressive elements - this makes no sense, it's wishy-washy, and is better removed.

While I agree that in this case it's better not to say that the NYT said something, it's unnecessary to include such detailed phrases. We're here to sum up what the reliable sources say and I think this can be done much more efficiently and encyclopaedia-like. This paragraph would work:

A Voice for Men is the largest, most popular, and most visible and influential MRM site.[6][7][8] Its content has been described as "deeply misogynistic"[1][3] and hostilely anti-feminist.[4]

Ca2james (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph per mine and PearlSt82's suggestion because of the WP:COPYVIO concerns I've raised. Copyright violations are serious business and can't be left as-is so please don't blindly revert. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Another problematic paragraph

The paragraph following the one under discussion in the preceding section has issues. This is the paragraph in question:

Less critical coverage featuring A Voice for Men and its staff have included a segment on Huffington Post Live[10] and Chill Media,[11] and The Register.[12]

It's of the form "source says x" which isn't oprimal. Of greater concern is the fact that the source don't support the statement that the site isn't discussed critically.

I haven't viewed [10] (it appears to not work on my mobile) so could you please tell me when the avfm site is first mentioned?

[11] isn't actually referenced properly as the ref should note that this us an archive. Anyways, avfm is mentioned only in passing in the article whose main subject is movember. This type of mention is not at all the same as "less critical coverage" and including this ref is misleading.

[12] also doesn't support "less critical coverage". It's an article about the site being branded as a hate group by Symantec and us written neutrally which is not at all the same as not critically. This ref should also be removed.

To be clear, a source mentioning avfm in passing does not mean that the source belongs in this article - especially when the source is intended to support the "less critical" kind of statement. In fact, this paragraph reads very much like WP:OR and should be removed unless you can can find reliable sources that portray avfm positively. Ca2james (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm listening to [10] right now and I'm not hearing anything that supports the statement that the coverage is less critical. In that source, Dean Esmay for avfm is part of a panel of experts discussing male rape, which is not the same thing as a reliable source discussing avfm itself in less-critical terms. Therefore, the statement is wholly unsupported by the references provided and must be deleted as WP:OR unless reliable sources supporting it can be found. Ca2james (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think this paragraph should be removed. It strikes me as an attempt to introduce a false balance into the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not for outright removal of all the content there, we could certainly salvage the sources. "Less critical" is pretty vague and sounds like someone on Wikipedia making an evaluation of the statements. Instead I think it would be better to find what the references in that paragraph say about the site, and use those references to support those statements. I'm going to drop the 'less critical' evaluation (sounds like original research) and simply represent what it says. Ranze (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ranze I see that you've changed the paragraph to say that avfm participated in a Huffpost Live segment and that the site was once blacklisted by Symantec. The blacklisting received very little coverage and only lasted a short time so its inclusion is WP:UNDUE.

Just because the site was once featured in a video discussion doesn't mean that this fact should be included in the article, and to do so is WP:OR. The video itself is a primary source for the video segment and in order to include something in the article, it must be discussed in a reliable secondary source - in other words, if there's an article discussing that people from the site were featured in the segment then it could be included. Primary sources can generally only be used in addition to secondary sources; please review WP:PRIMARY. Ca2james (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see WP:BALASPS. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mkay, well I figured it was worthwhile to try and salvage something when work was put into defining the reference, is anything notable in those 2? The Symantec-censorship seemed like a critical event, however short it was, since it shows the ability of opposition (presumably SPLC) to influence media moguls. I did not want to watch that laggy video interview again, keeps crashing me, does anyone recall any notable soundbites from it about the site? Ranze (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no "opposition", I imagine most people find MRAs to be a weird internet oddity at best --5.81.50.152 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Misogynist?

User:2605:6000:6FC0:5:606E:7F5C:6BE:A961 wants to label the purpose of the group as Misogynist. I reverted the addition for a second time. this label may or may not be accurate, but doesn't seem appropriate to put as a "purpose". Critics should not have the freedom to define the purpose of an organization. As a compromise I put the link in A_Voice_for_Men#Criticisms. This statement seems sufficient to satisfy a "balance" this hexidecimal loving editor desires. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2012 it was labeled a misogynist organization by The Southern Poverty Law Center.

ref: "Misogyny: The Sites". SPLC. Spring 2012.

Unfortunately, it isn't labeled a misogynist organization by the SPLC. The only section which talks about misogyny is the opening, and the sentence reads "Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express." Unfortunately almost all is not the same as all, so we cannot say which sites they are labeling as having misogynistic attacks. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you reword it to be accurate to how you interpret it. Criticisms can say more about the critic than their target, and I don't think it is harmful to know who your critics are. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

About the only thing the article says about AVFM specifically is that it is essentially a mouth piece for Paul Elam, almost everything else are select quotes from Paul from the website. So in essence, I don't think it says anything. At least not anything useful for an article on AVFM. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Mark Potok said to BuzzFeed: "'The claim that Elam and his friends are merely trying to have a conversation about the rights of men in modern society is bogus. What it's really about is the defamation of women as a group; that's called misogyny,' said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has described AVFM as part of a network of 'misogynists' and 'women haters.'" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've followed the above links and found nothing that would make claims about AVfM eligible to WP:ASSERT. Rhoark (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ASSERT is relevant to this text. The text currently reads "and its content has been described as misogynistic" - whereas WP:ASSERT would discourage text like "its content is misogynistic". That AVFM has been described as misogynistic is both notable (in terms of coverage in RS) and factual. The last sentence of ASSERT reads "A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves." - the text currently includes "facts about opinions". PearlSt82 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This thread was in response to an editor adding a claim without attribution that the purpose of AVfM is misogyny. Rhoark (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Kyohyi's removal of the SPLC description of AVFM as misogynistic and his claim in the edit summary. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)

My removal was based off of what the source used in the edit said and did not say. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment is based on Potok and the SPLC's subsequent clarification if what they said. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My bologna has a first name; it's Oscar. Rhoark (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Content

Hello! Recently a very large amount of content has been removed from the page due to concerns it might violate our BLP policies. Fortunately, articles about companies do not really fall under BLP, and as such we don't need to worry about that- we should just write what the reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPGROUP. Most seriously note that your revert restored the following text How Men's Rights Leader Paul Elam Turned Being A Deadbeat Dad Into A Moneymaking Movement, sourced to buzzfeed. I have reverted per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note also that this article is under Discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. It's rarely appropriate to wholesale revert multiple, independent edits. If you have issues with the existing text please discuss here. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How Men's Rights Leader Paul Elam Turned Being A Deadbeat Dad Into A Moneymaking Movement is the name of the BuzzFeed article. It's not a statement in Wikipedia's voice. BuzzFeed is, like it or not, still considered a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that's the title, not a statement. It's text nonetheless was restored with this revert. Buzzfeed in any case and especially as a sole source is unquestionably insufficient for BLP statements. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is questionable, since I'm questioning it: What is your basis for making that claim? How is it not a WP:RS? Some of the supported claims are BLP, but not all of them. Also, although you may already know this, this article is not under WP:3RR, it's under WP:1RR per Wikipedia:General sanctions and Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading up on the pages you linked, it appears that the 1RR restriction for MRA related pages expired on October 27th of 2014. Is there a different specific restriction you were referring to? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh so it has, I stand corrected. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1RR is indefinitely in effect I thought? PearlSt82 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction was for a limited time, and it ran out back on October 27th of last year. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You've cited WP:BLPGROUP to justify your continued deletion of material. What particular case-by-case justification do you use for applying BLP to this group? It certainly can't be due to its size- it's billed in our article as the 'largest and most influential men's rights site.' I certainly don't think BLP applies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two organizations discussed in this article. AVFM the website, and AVFM the LLC. While AVFM the LLC hosts AVFM the website they aren't the same thing. A similar comparison (though on a much larger scale) could be made between the WMF and Wikipedia. Most of the content in this article is about AVFM the website, which I think is large enough to fall outside BLPGROUP. However, AVFM the LLC, cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam, which would make such content fall under WP:BLPGROUP. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

AVFM can most certainly be differentiated from Paul Elam. AVFM is a website with hundreds of contributors and dozens of volunteers. Elam is the founder who sometimes contributes content. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kyohyi highlights the relevant distinction: comments about the company or the content produced by the company, to which WP:BLPGROUP applies (from policy: "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group"), and comments about the content of the forums, to which WP:BLPGROUP does not apply.

Content in the Criticisms section relating to the company was restored with your revert. Content in the intro relating to Paul Elam (specifically the title of the sourced article) violates BLP directly and was also restored by it. WP:BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia including article talk pages and the References section of an article. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your two assumptions are a) that the sources you deleted do not satisfy BLP, and b) that this article is a BLP. Both assumptions are obviously wrong. Dozens of reliable secondary sources have reported the SPLC's description of AVFM. The BuzzFeed article and Dun & Bradstreet database are perfectly acceptable RS, especially for uncontroversial and easily verifiable claims such as the one about AVFM's online store. Moreover, this is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website with many, many contributors and volunteers. So far you have edit-warred against several editors to remove reliably sourced content, that is, you edited tendentiously. I suggest that you self-revert ASAP because, as you know, men's rights related pages are on article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• See this discussion on the RS noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Buzzfeed.2C_Mother_Jones_for_BLP.27s.. The BuzzFeed article is a perfectly acceptable source even if this were a BLP, which it isn't. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The RS discussion is relevant but inconclusive, I would be happy to continue it. AVFM the LLC has a single employee: Paul Elam (per sources.) You've restored BLPGROUP content relating to the company. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE consensus is required to restore BLP content. As there is no consensus yet I have reverted your restoration. Please do not restore again without consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The RS discussion was conclusive in that the BuzzFeed and Mother Jones sources are reliable sources for this article even if it were a BLP. The only editors who disagreed was Kyohyi. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am once again reverting this deletion of content. A) Article is talking about a website, not a living person. B) Sources are BLP compliant even if our BLP policies were to be applied, meaning that their use as a source is fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. José Antonio Zapato seems to suggest that BLP applies to the website because the many activists who write and work for the website aren't officially employed by the website. So by that logic, any statement about the website is indistinguishable from a statement about the one person who actually gets paid. Sorry, but this line of reasoning is unconvincing (to put it very mildly). But even if it made any sense to assume that BLP applies here, the sources are, as you said, BLP compliant. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Using the name of the article as an argument against its inclusion is almost nonsensical in this case. Should we call it "article name redacted"? I can see some argument that this could devolve into a bash Elam fest (although I don't think we're there yet) but that's not a license to remove all critical commentary against the whole website. For example, the SPLC stuff has also been corroborated by multiple secondary sources, such as Time, so its removal seems especially flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note (in case you missed the little notice at the top of the page like I did): José Antonio Zapato has started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The blanking, which I don't agree with, does suggest some some changes that should be made. I don't think Chill is a great source, although its only statement is uncontroversial. The SPLC stuff seems too long for just primary sources, and the quotes seem a bit cherry-picked, since they are about a larger internet phenomenon. Even with the Time source, it should be folded into the controversy section (which should be better named, per WP:CSECTION). The bit about the Honey Badger incident is totally lacking enough context to be informative. Would anyone not already following the incident have a clue what that's about? The Mary Sue may be an RS (I think so, anyway) but the incident has nothing to do with SPLC and seems shoehorned. "Critics of the site believe" is kind of a WP:WEASEL phrase, and clearly attributing the criticisms would be better. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of information about the Honey Badgers (I don't believe it is at all related to the SPLC listing) would be good, and I also agree with more strongly attributing criticism- something like 'X writer for Y source' or 'writers from ABC sources have characterised...'. As to the quotes: We can probably rewrite them in plain English without quotes. I believe it's only necessary to specifically quote them if they've come under specific criticism from another source because of them.

Perhaps we could start a 'Beliefs' section which shows the most strongly representative beliefs the site's contributors hold (changing custody laws, anti-feminism, role of women etc)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have again reverted per BLP policy. There is a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Even temporary inclusion of noncomplaint BLP content harms the subject and is a liability to wikipedia. Temporary exclusion of the content harms no one. Please allow the discussion on BLPN to conclude. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I must disagree. Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is absolutely harmful. It harms the project's integrity, and it undermines the work of editors who are trying to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I made some of the edits I talked about above, but they were EC'd. Rather than play edit war games, I dumped them in User:Grayfell/sandbox for now. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Ok, I've fully-protected this page for three days, as this dispute has been rumbling on for a week now. Please continue to discuss this here until you come to some sort of consensus, then request any admin to unprot the page - Alison ^❤ 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hey! So I thought we should have a section to discuss changes that could be made to the article once protection has expired. I'm assuming we're going to be restoring the version that does not have significant swathes of content removed by IPs.

• Separate history and activity?
• We should probably rephrase the origins of the site- don't just say that the site was established at some time and argued against X, we should clearly establish that the site was established to argue against X or in response to X.
• Expanding or removing the 'Honey Badgers' section. We have an official statement from the Calgary Expo and reporting thereon to use if we'd like to expand it. I'd lean towards expanding it, given the strong ties between the two subjects and that we don't have a separate Honey Badgers article.
• We should source every statement in criticisms- we cannot just state 'critics of the site believe'. This goes for 'finances have been described as murky' too, in that we should say who described it as such.
• In criticisms, we can't have the synthesis of 'Paul Elam said this about donations, but later said this about donations'. We should either include either that Paul Elam has refused to state how donations are spent or (preferably) that Paul Elam has stated that donations go to his pocket.

Thoughts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops- sorry, missed the proposed changes by Grayfell. Sorry about that. I think those proposed changes also have a great deal of sense to them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My sandboxed changes mostly match your proposals. I think the "donations go right into my pocket" line should probably be cut. Without additional sources that are more specific about the finances of the site, it's taking as literal something that is open to interpretation. The money thing is a big source of speculation, but I haven't seen anything really solid on it. I also haven't seen any reliable sources about the Honey Badger thing other than the one Calgary Expo expulsion, so any such section would probably be pretty small. Other than that, I agree with all of those suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This Vice article might be a good source if we agree to expand on the Honey Badgers (beyond the incident at the Calgary Expo.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good find. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We should try to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about the site rather than repeat blindly what AVFM says about itself. For example, AVFM wants people to believe that it specializes in "criticism of feminism". But AVFM isn't "critical of feminism", it is antifeminist. There's a clear difference between being critical of feminism and being anti-feminist. Radical feminists are critical of liberal feminists, black feminists and lesbian feminists criticize mainstream feminists, Muslim feminists are critical of Western feminists, most feminists are critical of co-called "third-wave" feminism, and so forth. Feminism and criticism of feminism aren't mutually exclusive, and frequently criticism of feminism comes from within feminism. But antifeminism is the rejection of the most basic feminist principles and that is precisely what AVFM does according to reliable sources (e.g., [19][20][21]). Considering that AVFM is part of the larger men's rights movement which developed as an antifeminist backlash, it's disingenuous to pretend that AVFM is just "critical of" rather than opposed to feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell: It's not just the BuzzFeed article that points out that the donations don't go to the intended causes, be it extra security to protect activists from phony feminist threats or services for abused men. For example, And donations to it don't go to fighting violence at all... [22]. The questions seem to have become so loud that the AVFM founder responded to them in an article titled C'mon, Paul, What Do You Do With the Money?, stating "Every dollar donated goes right into my pocket." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a section called 'Finances' which details both the many questions that have been asked about their finances as well as their potential exploitation of donations, as well as the official response from AVFM? Starting somewhat like 'AVFM is mostly volunteer-run and donation-financed. Many concerns have been raised about its expenditures by X, Y, Z...' PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There's material for two to three sentences, not an entire section. Bear in mind that the men's rights movement is very fringe (not as in WP:FRINGE but as in RS aren't paying much attention to it), so there aren't that many RS discussing AVFM. I think two to three sentences should be added to the activity section because they would fit well with the White Ribbon copycat site started by AVFM. Something like: "Concerns have been raised by Server and Baker and Filipovic about the website's use of donations. For example, AVFM raised money by launching the White Ribbon site that appeared to be an anti-violence organization but the donations did not go to fighting violence. Responding to questions of how the website spends donations, site founder Paul Elam stated that "Every dollar donated goes right into my pocket." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's more than fair, and I like your proposed wording- I'll agree to a much more condensed section given the lack of reliable sources about it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about we replace the quote with: Elam states that all spending is at his personal discretion. The blog post the quote is from has surrounding context which paints a slightly different picture: I am the sole proprietor of A Voice for Men. It is my intellectual as well as personal property. Every dollar donated goes right into my pocket. I spend that money on this website and on activist efforts at my own discretion, considering the opinions of the AVFM management team that volunteers to help run this place. Linking to the quote's source is technically tricky. AVFM is blacklisted: obvious.blacklisted.site/a-voice-for-men/cmon-paul-what-do-you-do-with-the-money/ and the Scribd link used by the BuzzFeed article did not work for me, but YMMV. Anyway, BuzzFeed might phrase things for added punch, but I'd rather err on the side of dry but neutral. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That Scribd isn't working for me either. I'm not sure I'm okay with that particular phrasing- it implies an account held by AVFM that is then distributed according to Elam's judgement, rather than the money going personally to Elam (as the situation currently seems to be.) If we can't source specifically from AVFM given that they're blacklisted, we really should be sticking more directly to the Buzzfeed article. Perhaps "All donations go to Elam's personal finances."? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that'll work. If we needed to use that as a source, it's exactly what the whitelist is for, since it's a specific page directly related to the blacklisted site itself, and not general-purpose spam. Better to avoid that if possible, though. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheForth's phrasing works for me too. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Could I get a quick check on whether people think the Honey Badgers warrant mention in this article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Not sure they need a whole section, but definitely a mention based on the Calgary stuff. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm undecided. I've found sources that suggest that the Calgary Expo incident might be notable enough to be mentioned here. Examples here, here, here, and here. On the other hand, I can't tell from the coverage if the incident and the "Honey Badgers" are important enough for AVFM and whether it's UNDUE to focus on the only women on the site, who make up a tiny minority of AVFM activists. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and done a bunch of changes, using Grayfell's stuff as a base and trying to stick to the consensus here. Let me know what you think, and please improve it- there's a ton more that can be done than I have, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. When the article was protected, @Bishonen: removed the NYT source, since it didn't support the term controversial. I repeated that edit. I don't have a subscription, but regardless, the word controversial is so vague that it doesn't make sense to me to use that one source to make that claim. Pretty much all reliable sources say it's controversial, either directly or indirectly, so I removed that source and moved it under the other sources. It still seems too vague, though. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The only relevant statement in the NYT source is: Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam's A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny. Someone must have changed it to "controversial" but that's not what the source actually says. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

SPLC section removal

@José Antonio Zapato: pertaining to Special:Diff/657130678 please explain why you removed this new 3-section paragraph. You cited WP:UNDUE. Please compare to Controversial_Reddit_communities#SPLC_listing. It seems notable enough to mention SPLC criticism there, why not here? Ranze (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That user is currently banned, so it'll be a while before an explanation is forthcoming. The SPLC content is being discussed above, as well. Grayfell (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Except for this notification I will also have to voluntarily avoid editing this article/talk for a bit until I get an official decision in my sanctions dispute as my edits here are alleged by some to be gender-related controversy. Ranze (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

'Feminist' commentators

I think it goes without saying that there's no need to label the critics of AVFM in the hate group section as feminists as though it were a pejorative. Quick show of hands so I know that further attempts to reintroduce it are against consensus? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This diff describes Leah McLaren, Jaclyn Friedman and Jill Filipovic as feminist commentators. For the first two see our own articles and corresponding sources. For Filipovic see her about on her shared blog site "feministe."

Re: relevance, being feminists it's pretty obviously relevant to criticism of a group we describe as "anti-feminist." We commonly and appropriately use "conservative critics" and "liberal critics" to clarify criticism of liberals and conservatives (respectively) when accurate. - DallyKale (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these sources label the writers you identify as feminist as feminists? Reading through the sources we're using, they do not. It seems you might be using original research, which is against policy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You keep asking that and I keep saying "yes" :) Maybe you can read the sources then discuss? And as one of the editors who introduced "feminist" I don't see it as any sort of pejorative - no more than conservative or liberal. It's a relevant descriptor when the subject is an "anti-feminist" group. DallyKale (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the 'feminist' quantifier is OR/NPOV, and implies that all criticism comes from feminist circles, of which the SPLC certainly is not.PearlSt82 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well lets take one at a time. OR: our own articles describe them as feminists... so that seems settled. Should we move on and address NPOV now? DallyKale (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source. The sources we are using in this article do not identify these writers as feminists. Thus, pejoratively describing them as such is OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm suggesting a) we wouldn't allowed unsourced BLPs and b) we use the sources used in those articles. "This is why I agree with Kate Reardon as both a feminist and a mother." (McLaren) Filipovic writes a whole article about her feminism here. I'll leave the 3rd as an exercise to the reader. DallyKale (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to source things to articles, we need to cite them directly. You are not citing these directly, thus you cannot use them as a source to support your labeling of criticism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So you want these sources included, even where the linked BLPs include them? Seems redundant and a little messy but I'm not strongly opposed. DallyKale (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that, I think pejoratively labeling them as feminists is A) NPOV and B) OR, as not all of them are identified as such by reliable sources. What I'm saying is that if you want to, which you do as you have reverted three times to keep this labeling in the article, you at least need to support this material with reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, lets address these one at a time. OR: "not all of them are identified as such by reliable sources" - which source or sources specifically do you object to? DallyKale (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article does not identify the writer, Leah McLaren, as feminist. The Prospect article does not identify the writer, Jaclyn Friedman, as feminist. The Cosmopolitan article does not identify the writer, Jill Filopovic, as feminist. As such, I have reverted your insertion of the qualifier 'feminist' because despite my continued requests, you have not sourced it. Just FYI, inserting this qualifier again would violate the 3 reverts per article per editor per 24 hour restriction- I explain this only because you are a new editor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You say:

• "The Globe and Mail article does not identify the writer, Leah McLaren, as feminist."

From that article: "This is why I agree with Kate Reardon as both a feminist and a mother." -LEAH MCLAREN

• "The Prospect article does not identify the writer, Jaclyn Friedman, as feminist."

That's true but as I said in my earlier response, the sources in her wikipedia article do: "as a feminist activist and co-author of..." -Jaclyn Friedman

• "The Cosmopolitan article does not identify the writer, Jill Filopovic, as feminist."

The entire article describes her journey to feminism, this source describes her as "the editor of the feminist blog Feministe", from the guardian: "Most of us never chose feminism as a career choice", MSNBC lists her as part of "A power panel of feminists" -even a quick search would show most of her writing concerns feminism.

I have to say it's surprising despite reading the sources you somehow missed all of these. In particular the first quote which I repeated word for word in a response to you above. DallyKale (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Without explicitly sourcing these claims in the article (as I asked you to), we cannot use those to include material in the article. You did not source these claims in the article. The Globe and Mail article I am referring to is the one we cite in the article, not 'The Importance Of Being Courteous'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I would have gladly sourced them as I said above "So you want these sources included, even where the linked BLPs include them? Seems redundant and a little messy but I'm not strongly opposed" to which you responded "No, I don't agree with that." Now you're saying they should be sourced here? Can you clarify please? DallyKale (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with you including the qualifier feminist. I also explicitly stated that if you were going to do so regardless, the very least you should do is source it. You did not, so I removed it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Added with direct sourcing, as requested. DallyKale (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Leah McLaren and Jaclyn Friedman may be identified as feminist in their articles, and might even by identified as feminist by RS, but Jill Filipovic, Mark Potok of the SPLC, Kate Abbey-Lambertz of The Huffington Post, and TIME are not. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where we describe Kate as a feminist and I restructured the sentence with Mark to make it clearer that the description doesn't apply. We disagree on Filipovic - above I linked an article she wrote for cosmo where she describes her journey to feminism. DallyKale (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's safe to say that all sources which bother to even discuss AVFM see them as anti-woman. They either outright say that AVFM is misogynistic, mention them as part of what they as as the misogynistic men's rights movement ([23], [http://www.internationaljournalofresearch.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/1351/1276predatory open access], [24], [25], SPLC...) or they just quote AVFM and let readers decide how they would call statements like Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true or a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk [through] life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads. Therefore, it would be perfectly fine to state without attribution that some commentators have described them as misogynistic. --SonicY (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think it's safe to say that. There are several respectable sources which don't (also found a bunch of new/relevant stuff to expand the non-criticsm sections of the article):

• http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
• http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201503/mens-rights-activism-the-red-pill
• http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/6/6/mena-s-rights-activistfeministshaveusedrapeaasascama.html
• https://www.vice.com/read/the-women-of-the-mens-rights-movement-804
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/11/mens_rights_site_blacklist/
• http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement
• http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2014/06/19/mens-rights-activist-group-relocates-conference-but-opposition-follows

The criticism section as it was was already the largest in the article - expanding it is WP:UNDUE. DallyKale (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed the new sources, so you could restore the "feminist" qualifier, something that PearlSt82, PeterTheFourth and I objected to. You knew that you edited against consensus and you continue doing it. By the way, you should read the sources that you linked. From just a cursory glance at the first link: And yet despite these real troubles, the leaders of the movement have been unable to move beyond a reputation for hate. Its most influential online gathering place, the website A Voice for Men, founded in 2009 by Paul Elam, who led the June conference, has been described as “misogynist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama nonprofit that tracks hate groups. In addition to purporting to “expose misandry on all levels in our culture,” the site is also frequently a soapbox for Elam to attack individual women he feels are threats to the movement. Most influential gathering place for movement with a reputation for hate, SPLC listing, frequently attacks women, triple check. --SonicY (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. In the previous discussion Peter and I reached a compromise. I waited more than a day for Pearl to respond, he didn't. You jumped in and removed it having not participated in the discussion and claiming all sources describe it that way, which is demonstrably false. I've read all of these sources, why would you say I havent? I'd really prefer to keep the discussion civil, can we stick to talk about sources and policy? DallyKale (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It just seems very strange that anyone would accept the "feminist" qualifier is accurate (which the sources show it is) but irrelevant when we're discussing criticism of an anti-feminist website. I see Peter recently edited this sentence in an unrelated article that includes "Conservative journalist ... characterized the negative responses as leftist." Conservative is very relevant to the criticism of a left-wing website just as feminist is very relevant here. DallyKale (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if you really did reach a compromise with one user, you failed to convince the other two. Ergo, no consensus. And come on, you know that it's absurd to pretend that's is only feminists who call AVFM misogynistic and you know that trying to undercut the credibility of RS is against NPOV. --SonicY (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I responded to everyone who engaged, I'm not sure what more I could do. Sure, I've seen plenty of sources critical of AVFM but the majority using those words (misogynistic, hateful) are feminist sources or authors - even one of the papers you link above starts with "Feminist Criticism of" or something to that effect. To respond to the edit of your comment up there - the Time article is a good article with lots of useful stuff, the author never describes the site or movement as either of those words, she only quotes the SPLC description of it (whose criticism we've already included) in describing the site's reputation DallyKale (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, no 'compromise' was reached with me. I was reminding you of the very bare minimum of Wikipedia policy, while also rejecting what you planned to implement (that is to say, UNDUE and NPOV descriptions of our commentators.) You are editing against consensus as you have failed to convince anybody that it improves the article by pejoratively describing these commentators as feminist. Also important to note: I did not add 'Conservative' to that article- your allegation that I did is a baldfaced lie. I see absolutely no significance in mentioning it unless I added it, which I did not. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the matter under discussion (at least, if I do, you won't get it out of me), but I believe DallyKale has plans for an RFC. Speaking purely as an uninvolved admin, I think you should dial down rhetoric like "baldfaced lie", PeterTheFourth. DallyKale didn't allege you added the word "conservative" to Hugo Award, only (correctly) that you edited a sentence that included it. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

My bad. Strikethrough'd and corrected. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BLPN Posting

I have posted to the BLPN re: the reversion of this edit. Link to posting: link José Antonio Zapato (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the criticism section written and sized appropriately?

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

---

Question 1: Should commentators describing the site as "hateful" and "misogynistic" be named individually and if so, is it appropriate to identify the feminist critics as feminists given the anti-feminist nature of the site?

Question 2: Is the size and detail of the criticism section appropriate given the breadth of citable criticism? If we were to expand it, which of the following tests for inclusion best applies:

• Criticism raises an issue not previously raised
• Criticism raises no new issues but either the author or RS is particularly notable
• Criticism meets basic RS standards
• Other

DallyKale (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi!

Question 1: I don't see the need to include additional sources to attribute commentators as feminists (per the previous attempts to label them pejoratively as such). If we are going to individually identify the commentators (which is probably(?) best) I see it as more relevant to source any previous experience or qualifications they have in the area, rather than what political labels can be thrown onto them.

Question 2: Criticism should be represented by how reliable the source is and how widespread a view it represents. We should not include WP:FRINGE commentary or opinions, but criticism that is repeated in many reliable sources (or in sources of high reliability) is ripe for inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you see the feminist label as pejorative? DallyKale (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as pejorative by itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't used pejoratively by some people. When an editor's sole contribution to an article is labelling criticism as 'feminist' and try to refute criticism with original research, I see it as being used pejoratively. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who added it I can tell you it was not used pejoratively but as an accurate and succinct way to inform the reader that the critics are fundamentally opposed to the philosophy espoused by the site. It's no less appropriate than identifying "conservative critics" of a liberal site or vice versa. I'm not sure what OR you're referring to - per your unusual request the feminist label was well (and redundantly) sourced. DallyKale (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As 'the' editor or as 'an' editor? I've seen you use both- are you claiming to be the IP editor who initially added that text? My reference to OR is in reference to the diff I linked. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

From these talk page discussions it seems your comments are often focused on contributors rather than content. We'd all be better served if that were not the case. I hope my edit wasn't too confusing - if it was I apologize, "an" is the correct version. I assumed your link pointed to my edit rather than the IP's edit, which does contain OR. DallyKale (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• 1 Naming them individually seems like a good way to avoid WP:WEASEL words. Labeling them as feminists, however, seems like a bad idea. Specifically stating that they are feminists would be implying that their status as feminists is a vital part of their reason for commenting on the site, which is a contestable statement to say the least. It also seems like false balance to frame it as "anti-feminist vs feminist" which is simplistic and misleading.

2 Please put it back the way it was and wait for this process to proceed. It gives the appearance that you're trying to game the system when you make significant changes and then point to this RFC as an example of trying to build consensus. We've already seen that kind of behavior on the page in the recent past, and it would be a nice show of good faith to demonstrate some patience. As for the question itself, each source should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and all sources currently used seem fine. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please review the version history. The recent additions which I reverted were the significant changes, rather than my reversion. DallyKale (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, see below. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Re question 1: Not all of the commentators who describe the site as hateful or misogynistic identify as feminists. So it's inappropriate to label them "feminists". I agree with PeterTheFourth that it would be more useful to describe their expertise or qualification in the field, for example, masculinity scholar, SPLC spokesperson, journalist etc. Re question 2: If we went strictly by what RS say about AVFM, the criticisms would need to be extended considerably. All RS are critical or highly critical of AVFM. Even the sources that DailyKale linked in defense of AVFM contain substantive criticisms. The only problem with the current criticism section is that the negative material needs to be integrated into the other sections of the article instead of being ghettoized into a separate section which then serves as a troll magnet. For example, the SPLC criticism can be integrated into the "About" and "Activities" sections. The SPLC mentions AVFM's mission statement critically ("VfM regards feminists, manginas, white knights and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not ... extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen [sic], skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate"), this would fit well in the "About" section because it shows whom AVFM considers the "agents of misandry." The SPLC's criticism that the manosphere including AVFM is "thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express" could also go into the "About" or "Activities" section, similar to the paragraph about AVFM's fake White Ribbon site and the criticism from the legitimate White Ribbon Campaign. If we integrate the negative material into the other sections, the criticism section would shrink dramatically or disappear altogether. --SonicY (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with what people mentioned above; what is primarily important are their qualifications, which are what should be used to identify them. If someone is primarily famous as a feminist activist (that is, if that is the reason their comments are noteworthy enough to include), that should be mentioned as part of the usual framing of "who is this and why are their comments here"; but if they are a journalist or a writer or some other form of professional and only a feminist incidental to that main qualification, it shouldn't be mentioned. For comparison, if, say we were citing a politician or political activist, we'd usually mention their party or affiliation (since it's core to their qualifications); but if a journalist or scientist or someone whose credentials came from elsewhere were cited (even on a politically-charged matter), it would be inappropriate to preface it with their political party as though that is a qualifier on their expertise. Nobody would accept "Richard Alley, noted climatologist and liberal" as a preface to someone's views on a climate-related article, even if some people might argue (given the politically controversial nature of climate science in the US) that that political affiliation is relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Criticism section

Hey! I saw DailyKale's reversion of the addition of some more reliable sources to the criticism section, such as citing the opinion of somebody writing for the New York Times (a highly respected publication), because there was 'no consensus'. Per the guidelines for establishing consensus, I am reverting it (restoring the sources) and voicing my support for the inclusion highly respected publication as a source for our article by SonicYouth86. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I've reverted it but I'm ready to discuss. My concern was more for Ford and Casey, and in general the size of the criticism section. I hope this is an issue the RFC will settle. DallyKale (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that the bold move is removing sources from the NYT because you disagree with there being criticism of the AVFM site, not reverting to restore these sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Citing BRD in this case is silly. It's not a rationale for edit warring, and it specifically says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again". BRD is an essay saying "try something, and then if it doesn't work, talk about it." Well, guess what: It didn't work. Now you should self-revert and continue talking about it if you want us to take you seriously. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the additional sources were the edit, which I reverted per lack of consensus. You seem to be framing this as my revert being the "B" rather than the "R", which is misleading. You should review the version history and address these comments to PeterTheFourth instead. DallyKale (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I know how to read an edit history. Are you confused about how this works? Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly one of us is. Can you tell me from your reading of the edit history on what date consensus (either by discussion or lack of reversion) was established to include these additional sources? I think that should resolve any confusion. DallyKale (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. You have repeatedly made a significant change, and you've been reverted. Now the burden is on you to build consensus, not on us to point to preexisting consensus. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The content was added by Peter on May 8th. It was reverted by me on May 11th. No talk page discussion establishes consensus for its inclusion. If you have evidence to correct any of those claims I'll listen. DallyKale (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? That was a revert of changes you made a few hours earlier with this edit. So are you going to revert? Grayfell (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about this edit on May 8th which added the disputed content to the article for the first time. Was it present in a prior version? If it was I'll admit my mistake. DallyKale (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so Sonicyouth86, not PeterTheFourth, made some additions you didn't agree with, so instead of reverting you removed the content and their sources at the same time you re-added a contentious wording change. Are you saying BRD doesn't also apply to adding "feminist"? It does, which you should realize if you're using BRD as a rationale. Continuing to revert and escalate by remove additional content is only undermining the BRD claim. Your changes got way too messy and have too many editors involved for that to be applicable. So yeah, I still think you should self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So I was right but I should revert just because? No, the last consensus version of the article did not include the sources I reverted and did not include the "feminist" label. The current version does not include those sources or the "feminist" label - that's exactly as it should be if BRD is followed consistently, especially considering the RFC is meant to address both those disputes. I'd appreciate if you'd strike through your mistaken comments and I'll strike through my responses - they'll only distract from productive discussion. DallyKale (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did I say you were right? The word consensus is misleading here. Several editors have worked on the article. If you revert once, fine, claim BRD, but when a different editor reverts you, even if that's not the best course of action, it's really, really not BRD anymore. Consensus doesn't mean "the way it was before" it means what is agreed on. Right now, there is no consensus, so reverting multiple times to remove something you don't like is just slow-burn edit warring, and it's going to get the article frozen again, which honestly seems like it might be exactly what you want, I don't know. Grayfell (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not Grayfell, but it is possible that he's referring to our guidelines on consensus, per 'Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.' PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur with PeterTheFourth. The sources are many and reliable. Given the history of AVfM, is not out of line. I did revert back to PTF's. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I don't believe the reliability or existence of these sources was questioned here so I'm not sure what you're responding to here. The question was whether a litany of opinions from relatively un-notable commentators is WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? If you could add them to the discussion below that'd be best, thanks. DallyKale (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for criticism

Hi DallyKale! Welcome back to Wikipedia. Would you please explain how you believe there's no consensus for adding these sources? For reference, myself, Sonicyouth86, and Grayfell seem to support adding these sources. Would you also explain how adding sources for what we already have in the article is WP:UNDUE? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We didn't establish consensus last time and there's been no discussion since so... To your point, the addition of sources wasn't the issue. We cover the SPLC's criticism which is notable and relevant. What was and is undue is the paragraph that follows where we include the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry who's ever had anything bad to say. Expanding that list only makes it worse. I suggest we go through the criticisms and pick the most notable and relevant. DallyKale (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good strategy, but I'm not really sure where the line is. Why is the opinion of journalists writing for established, reliable papers undue? If there are a large number of reliable sources saying similar messages, then it's not unrealistic for the article to reflect that. Merely giving a couple of examples would give the impression that only a few commentators have characterized AVfM as misogynistic, when that is fairly common. Some degree of restraint is called for, however. Strictly from a grammatical standpoint, the current wording is a problem because it could be read as implying that most of the people who are saying critical things are with SLPC. That's something that needs to be fixed regardless. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling the rambling list undue not the individual opinions. Unless the opinions add new information or they're particularly notable we're just wasting space. A summary and select criticisms would convey just as much information more clearly to the reader and with fewer words. DallyKale (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about "wasting space" because Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. I added the additional sources because you claimed that feminists criticize AVFM when it's clearly not just feminists. Furthermore, the additional sources show that it's the mainstream view in RS, and that attributing each statement to its author might be unnecessary because WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is for "biased" statements, not for mainstream views. --SonicY (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Authors writing for major news sources or SPLC insufficiently notable? I disagree. Anyway, misogyny is not a topic needing extensive training to diagnose. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 07:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138! So when I said "the SPLC's criticism ... is notable" that's actually what I meant. Was there something particular in my phrasing that confused you? I'm also glad to have your opinion on misogyny training but I can't see what policy-based relation it has to WP:UNDUE. I do see you have a lot of experience here so if you could explain the connection I'd definitely appreciate it. Thanks again. DallyKale (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about the additional authors being UNDUE, or a rambling list? Both have been answered previously: No. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you're reading these threads now before responding, so thanks for that, but typing "No." without explanation really doesn't advance the discussion. Is there an argument that follows? DallyKale (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed and answered: not rambling (but could use some clarification) and the individuals in question are notable. Unless you have something new, this discussion is done. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 20:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Identifying commentators as feminist

Since it seems to be the focus of a small revert-war at the moment, I'll reiterate what I said above: I think it's inappropriate to characterize someone (or, in this case, a group of people) as a 'feminist' as though that is an automatic qualifier to their words unless either a. they're primarily notable as a feminist, ie. via activism or the like, or b. they're unequivocally and explicitly speaking in their capacity as a feminist. We would not look up the ideological background of a journalist and then preface quotes from them with "noted Democrat XYZ", "noted Republican XYZ", "noted liberal XYZ", etc; those things are only mentioned when they're core to what makes them relevant (ie. if they're an actual politician or mainly noteworthy for political activism.) This is besides the fact that, in this particular case, I don't think all the people quoted actually are feminists; but even if they were, it is inappropriate to qualify their comments with that if they are eg. a journalist or writer who is only incidentally a feminist, in the same way that it would be inappropriate to qualify a commentator with "socialist" or "libertarian" or "Christian" or any other identifier if that were incidental to what made their opinions noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: While I was typing this, an IP editor has reverted it again, stating that they are all feminists. Going over them, I can't find any indication that Mark Potok or Brad Casey are feminists; regardless, I reiterate that it is inappropriate to characterize a journalist as a "feminist" unless that is core to what makes them notable, in the same way that it would be inappropriate to characterize them by their politics, gender, religion, and so on. Even when eg. a journalist is reporting on politics or on religious matters, we would not normally preface their comments with their own political beliefs or religion unless that was in some way directly related to what made their comments notable. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Futrell on Wikipedia

This user appears to have adopted a pseudonym which coincides with the surname of a regular AFVM critic: Special:Contributions/Futrell

Yet it was only used to go after Roosh V.

This made me curious, has We Hunted The Mammoth ever approached enough popularity to be notable enough to qualify for an article? Has it been used as a reference anywhere?

With AVFM blacklisted it makes me wonder if its critic ever received similar treatment.

Since each is critical of the other, I could see how complementary articles could benefit each's coverage and imbue a larger perspective to issues each confronts. 64.228.91.73 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Coincides does not necessarily indicate that it is, and I very much doubt a blog on the internet has such notability. I'm surprised Roosh does. Koncorde (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AVFM was blacklisted because people were spamming random articles with AVFM links and basically using the linking policy inappropriately. I don't think anyone has done this with WHTM articles. Likewise, I highly doubt WP user Futrell is the same person as WHTM author David Futrelle based on writing style alone. A cursory search on WHTM for mentions in RS doesn't really turn up much, so I dont think it would be notable enough for an article. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, the author of We Hunted The Mammoth spells his name differently, so...

I doubt the blog warrants an article, but its author is a little more likely. He's been quoted pretty often by reliable sources, and has been published in several notable newspapers and magazines, so maybe. I don't think there is enough reliable coverage about Futrelle or WHTM, though, but I could be wrong. The guideline would be Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe 'We Hunted The Mammoth' specifically, in-and-of-itself as a blog, has really recieved the degree of independent coverage that would justify an article. I don't think that having it exist would be a good idea until then (should the point ever actually happen). As far as speculating on the identities of Wikipedia contributors, I have no idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

It's used in the criticism section as a primary source on its own accusations, Wikipedia is not a review site and this is akin to placing reviews on a mobile telephone article. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes reviews all the time if they are WP:DUE weight. The section is phrased to clearly indicate where the opinion is coming from, the SPLC is a notable organization, and their statements about AVFM have been commented on by additional sources. Previously, in comments above, I said that I though it was a bit too long for the sources. After looking at a sampling of sources, I'm not so sure about that. Many, perhaps most, reliable secondary sources about AVFM at least mention the SPLC's description in passing, if not in detail. The site itself has made substantial comments about it, as well. It absolutely belongs in the article in some form. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of POV and Bias:

I stumbled across this page by accident and I was surprised at the lack of NPOV within the article. The article seems to be more of a hit piece against the organization, rather than a relatively objective presentation of the organization, its activities, and criticism. I was also surprised by the undue weight given the Southern Poverty Law Center given its haphazard approach to labeling people/organizations as extremists or hate groups (ex. Ben Carson controversy). Currently this article spends more time addressing the alleged abuses of A Voice for Men instead of describing what it does and its mission. I suggest this article be flagged for POV issues and that editors work to modify the page to abide by NPOV. 131.212.251.96 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only do we have an explicit criticism section which is not ideal but it's the largest section - the second largest, "Activities", also includes criticism in fact I don't think there's a paragraph in this article that doesn't include some form of criticism. This article needs a thorough review. 161.202.72.146 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As has already been discussed many times on this talk page, Wikipedia represents views according to reliable sources, with a preference towards WP:SECONDARY sources. If you have specific sources or suggestions, please present them, but your suggestions are too vague to be actionable. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

131.* identified an actionable objection, WP:UNDUE re:SPLC. I'll add another. According to the WP:POV page "The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources" I take issue with categorizing the following sources as "high-quality":

• Chill Magazine
• BuzzFeed
• The Week
• The Daily Beast
• BlogTalkRadio
• Cosmo
• Buzzfeed )again)

161.202.72.146 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

SPLC is already discussed several times on this page, including directly above, and simply saying "undue" without further elaboration is not helpful.

Chill magazine is only used to support that AVFM is based in the U.S. That's all. Are you contesting that point, or saying that it's not neutral? Without looking into its editorial guidelines further, I wouldn't use it for controversial content, but for this routine point it's not a big deal. If you really don't like it, find a replacement. Likewise, BlogTalkRadio is cited as a primary source for a routine detail about AVFM's own use of BlogTalkRadio, it would not be a reliable source for much else, but here it's fine. If you think that's undue, then I suppose I wouldn't object to removing that sentence, but it doesn't reflect on the entire article.

Buzzfeed comes up a lot at WP:RSN, and has also already been discussed on this talk page multiple times, and it's generally considered a reliable source in a context like this, as it does have editorial oversight and fact checking.

What's wrong with The Week, The Daily Beast, or Cosmopolitan? The usability of a source depends on its context, and these all seem fine to me, so you need to be much more specific if you want to actually improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning your comment on the SPLC, I know it is generally considered a reliable source. Again, I was mainly interested in the frequency it is used in the article and was using it as a specific example an over emphasis on negative coverage. 131.212.250.41 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Due to my relative inexperience with the men's right movement, I wanted to refrain from providing specific suggestions and defer to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, I can gather more neutral and applicable material concerning the organization's activities over the next few days. Concerning POV and reliable sources, would the organization's website be within those boundaries for activity descriptions? Regarding 161.202.72.146's comments, I have less concern over the quality of the sources referenced than the overutilization of negative documents throughout the article to the apparent exclusion of neutral information. Grayfell, would you prefer that I post sites/articles I find interesting in the talk page for your review? Or would you prefer I just make edits in the article itself? 131.212.250.41 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the controversial nature of the article, and the fact that the article is under probation: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, I think the answer is obvious. Generally, primary sources should be kept to minimum, and for anything remotely controversial, should be clearly indicated as being AVFM's description of their activities, rather than simple fact. Additionally, the site itself has been blacklisted because of past behavior, and cannot be linked on Wikipedia.

One more thing: While I hope this is just a coincidence, since 161.202.72.146 is a possible proxy server who's first edit was to restore the POV tag, it may be useful to review Wikipedia's policies regarding Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to note that, personally, I would fine with the article having more details about what happened at the men's conference, more details about who writes on the website, and more details about how many articles each specific author has done. But you can't just pull all of this out of the vacuum of deep space. There needs to be sources for all of that. To be honest, it looks to me like AVFM as a group is in trouble of their own making entirely, rather than from anyone else, since people associated with AVFM are dead-set on scrubbing out mentioning of criticism rather than, instead, focusing on adding new material. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

To assuage any concerns regarding sock-puppets and to facilitate discussion, I have created an official account with Wikipedia. To provide context for prior posts, the previous comments made by 131.212.41 and 131.212.96 are mine. I fully agree with CoffeeWithMarkets in that AVFM supporters exacerbated the issues within the article and have generally failed to provide constructive commentary. My main goals regarding the article is to more clearly and neutrally articulate the organization's activities within the About and Activities sections. I propose moving critical responses to such activities to the Criticism section at the bottom. Additionally, I would like to include more dispassionate material to round-out the existing sources. I found an article on National Review ([26]) that briefly discussed AVFM and the men's rights movement. Would the National Review be considered a reliable and relatively NPOV source? Because AVFM is frequently linked with the MRM, would it be alright to include sources that only discuss the MRM without mentioning AVFM specifically? For full disclosure, I am neither a supporter of the men's rights movement or third-wave feminism. I find their rhetoric equally noxious and merely seek to ensure both sides are given an opportunity to voice their alleged grievances. CopperPhoenix (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref tags don't work very well on talk pages without a Template:Reflist-talk, but unless there are a lot of them, or there is a lot of additional info about them, I find that using a simple link is easier. The software really shows its age on talk pages, and I look forward to when it's replaced by WP:FLOW. Anyway...

Both the men's movement and the men's rights movement have their own articles, so it would not be appropriate to include content about the larger movements here in most cases. Unless it's parenthetically clarifying a point of confusion, or is otherwise minor and uncontroversial, every source should specifically mention AVFM.

The National Review one is an opinion piece and should be attributed as Christine Sisto's opinion. Although positive about MRM, she's not very positive towards AVFM, which underscores why it's important not to confuse the org with the larger movement. Other than restating AVFM's antifeminism, the only two points about the group mentioned are the Detroit conference, which is already covered, and that they're anti-marriage. That seems like a good thing to know about the group, so I wouldn't object to it being added.

Critical responses to activities should not be folded into the criticism section. A good explanation of why that's a bad idea is here: WP:CSECTION, but put simply, content should not be confined to a section just to make something look better or worse, because that's not WP:NPOV. Figuring out how to integrate the critical content into the rest of the article is complicated and difficult, but at the very least we should not actively make the section any larger.

Wikipedia is not a platform for giving both sides equal opportunity, because that leads to false balance. Even using the term 'both sides' is misleading, as it's implying that both are comparable and that there aren't any third opinions. If the majority of reliable sources reflect negatively on this group, then Wikipedia must, by design, reflect that. Views are represented in proportion to their weight, not in proportion to the weight of their self-described opposites. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused about what's being meant here by "anti-marriage". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just straightforward opposition to the practice of marriage. The National Review article says: The group's mission statement advocates moving away from the tradition of marriage and Robert O'Hara, their U.S. news director, has stated that "marriage is unsafe and unsuitable for modern men." An al Jazeera interview is used as a source. That interview instead attributes the quote to the mission statement: The site's stated mission is to "denounce the institution of marriage as unsafe and unsuitable for modern men," "educate men and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance," "push for an end to rape hysteria" and "promote a culture that values equal treatment under the law for all human beings." All of those seem like they might be useful points to summarize here as AVFM's position. Regarding marriage specifically, O'Hara's interview statements are much milder, much vaguer, and probably not very useful after all, as they are presented as just his opinion. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for quotes

Template:cite web has a "quote=" field where we can include brief excerpts of pages as they relate to what the reference is supporting.

In the "described as misogynist and hateful by commentators such as" list in the Criticism section, if the quote field could include the appropriate snippets which include "hateful" and/or "misogynist", that would be helpful in understanding how the references support the sentence.

I am searching the Brad Casey article on Vice used as a reference there for the terms. I can't find "hateful". I found "hate" but that is used in the context of Casey reporting students were chanting "No hate speech on campus". Also got no matches for "misog".

Is it possible that this reference was used to support Casey describing it by some other term? I searched "A Voice for Men" and Casey uses the term "vitriolic" to describe it, but I can find no other adjectives he uses.

I think including appropriate brief quotes from authors with these references will make it easier to fact-check that how we are describing author statements matches up with the statements. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The quote field is currently used for the Casey statement. It reads "AVFM is run by a man named Paul Elam and provides a forum for vitriolic hatred against women and feminists.", which is indeed the exact text that appears in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Threats at ICMI ?

Hi,
I can't spot the place in Time's report on ICMI (ref. 16) where Time says " the conference was divided into many who made violent threats ...". Is it there?
T88.89.219.147 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

a) Under "Activities" I propose to add that "The website register-her.com was taken down in 2014", as per article references 12 (SPLC) and 16 (Time); if it is notable that the site was, then it must be notable that the site isn't.

b)I've read and reread Jessica Roy (reference 16, Time), and can't find any passage about anyone making violent threats at the conference. If my reading is correct, that assertion has to go.

c) Removing that leaves a weird sentence: "Journalist Jessica Roy remarked that she found the AVFM's conference divided between many individuals laughing openly at jokes about rape and many individuals /.../ by polite discussion on the other hand." As a summary, this seems like an exercise in SYNTH. There's no remark about division in the article; according to Roy, mentioning "comical asides and throwaway comments", when someone made the "yes means no" remark, "the audience burst into laughter", undivided. I think Roy's article could have a better summary than this. I would suggest summarizing it with the points from these following sentences from Roy's article:

"Beneath the vitriol and fear these men (and a small number of women) express are some truths about the state of men today. In a growing number of ways, boys and men are at a disadvantage."

"Many of the men active in the movement seem to have been drawn there through their own harrowing personal experiences"

"For the most part, the conference tried to display the gentler side of the movement, one that embraces activism for significant men’s issues."

"At Elam’s request, the majority of the speakers were noticeably less anti-woman in person than many are in their writings or speeches elsewhere."

"And yet despite these (/aforementioned/) real troubles, the leaders of the movement have been unable to move beyond a reputation for hate."

"The paranoia and vitriol of its leaders can’t possibly do anything for them (/i.e. men/)."

Including all this would of course be too much, but they make a kind of counterpoint: There are some dark statistics for men out there - there is a movement out there claiming to address this - some of them argue more violently elsewhere - they had a conference where they asked to tone it down - but they are perhaps not the people to do this right; which would be my preliminary summary of the points Roy makes in her article. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Qui tacet, consentire videtur ... so I'll make some edits soon. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
I propose to summarize Roy as follows:
//Jessica Roy, attending the ICMI in Detroit, wrote "For the most part, the conference tried to display the gentler side of the movement, one that embraces activism for significant men’s issues. ..." but "leaders of the movement have been unable to move beyond a reputation for hate." (ref)//
Also, the Kate Abbey-Lambertz quote (ref 25) needs to go. AVfM is not named for "packaging misogyny";
in her source article,
http://prospect.org/article/look-inside-mens-rights-movement-helped-fuel-california-alleged-killer-elliot-rodger ,
it is specifically the site the-spearhead.com which is described as doing so, not AVfM. So that would be SYNTH.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti-feminism

@Scott Illini: Hello. There are many sources both in the article and here on the talk page which support that the site is antifeminist. I don't know how many use the specific term "anti-feminist" or grammatical variants, but since I don't think this underlying point is contested by either outside sources, or by the site itself, I do not see any problem with this in the lead. If this needs to be spelled out directly in the body, that shouldn't be too hard, but it seems pretty clear already, so I don't understand why the term is a problem. Sources are almost universal that the site is opposed to feminism, at least as they define it. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree- this isn't a contentious case where some may argue that the site is anti-feminist, its establishment and operation is in direct opposition to what it sees as feminism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)