Talk:Justice for Men and Boys

Multiple issues template 14 October 2016

There are a large number of edits to this article which are from IP addresses. There is also some puffery going on. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored WP:COI template. The IP (79.67.240.155) offers no citation for the claim that, "The party is currently undertaking a strategic review and plans to publish a new strategy for the 2020 general election at the end of September 2016." this diff, so either the IP is lying, in which case the claim should be deleted or the IP has inside knowledge of the workings of the party, in which case it is a clear COI.

If I was attempting to "smear" the IP as suggested in this edit, then I would have just added an in-line according to whom? template, and later deleted the IP's edit. The entire article is riddled with edits from one-hit-wonder IPs, particularly from the Brighton area of the UK, who consistently fail to provide refs or edit summaries. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't just accuse random IPs of COI. The party appears to have links to Bedford, Nottinghamshire and more recently Maidenhead. There is no hint whatsoever of even the slightest link to Brighton not even any settlement within many miles of there. Anyone on the planet can read their site and then insert info from there. Your accusation is clearly 100% unsubstantiated and should be retracted. Shakehandsman (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you click on the IP addresses in the edit history and then use GeoLocate they are almost exclusively Brighton / Brighton and Hove / Sussex area. The party may well have links to Bedford, Nottinghamshire and Maidenhead but that is not who is doing drive-by one-off "this party is marvellous and anyone who doesn't think so is to be discredited" editing.

Full list (note: none in Bedford, Nottinghamshire or Maidenhead):

16 July 2015, 124.253.181.85 (Asia); 4 January 2016, 88.106.95.75 (Hove, East Sussex); 6 January 2016, 78.147.158.124 (Lancing, West Sussex); 9 January 2016, 92.26.168.210 (Lancing, West Sussex); 14 January 2016, 92.24.170.84 (Brighton, East Sussex); 26 January 2016, 92.26.162.166 (Steyning, West Sussex); 17 February 2016, 79.67.250.227 (Brighton, East Sussex); 15 July 2016, 79.67.230.201 (Worthing, West Sussex); 12 August 2016, 2.96.224.195 (Gloucester, Gloucestershire); 13 August 2016, 2605:E000:D5D0:D900:9570:F804:485F:2812 (Lahaina, Hawaii); 15 August 2016, 78.148.171.190 (Brighton, East Sussex); 19 August 2016, 79.67.229.76 (Worthing, West Sussex); 19 August 2016, 79.67.243.212 (Brighton, East Sussex); 20 September 2016, 86.21.116.60 (Manchester, Greater Manchester); 24 September 2016, 79.67.250.239 (Brighton, East Sussex); 26 September 2016, 92.25.12.106 (Brighton, East Sussex); 30 September 2016, 79.67.252.187 (Brighton, East Sussex); 1 October 2016, 79.67.228.81 (Littlehampton, West Sussex); 24 October 2016, 78.148.168.247 (Worthing, West Sussex); 14 October 2016, 92.25.6.34 (Brighton, East Sussex); 29 October 2016, 79.67.252.32 (Brighton, East Sussex); 15 December 2016, 79.67.240.155 (Worthing, West Sussex); 17 January 2016, 79.67.235.5 (Brighton, East Sussex). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very nice list but you've totally failed to prove a single thing you've alleged and thus you're continuing to spread false smears. Yes, it's an IP editor based in Brighton, but so what? Where's the connection to the subject? The fact that the IPs are all in Brighton actually disprove your point seeing as there's no known party link to the area (unless you'd like to provide one?). Your "evidence" has simply made your case far weaker. Either prove some sort of actual link between those IPs and someone connected to the party or take down the tag. So far you evidence amounts to zero, literally nothing whatsoever!--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of WP:COI states: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity." - i.e not a smear.

An editor based in Brighton has made multiple edits which demonstrate a close connection with the subject of the article. For example, this citation-free diff, how does the IP know that there is a strategic review underway, unless they have a close connection to the party? The party essentially consists of a blog and a single candidate, both run by Mike Buchanan, therefore the edit was either made by Mike Buchanan or someone close to him. That's not a judgment about anyone's opinions or integrity, and it is not - no matter how often you use the word - a smear.

If you are still unhappy then I suggest you contact WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for their take on the matter. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The webpage has apparently been removed from the J4MB blog, but it is still visible in google search - https://www.google.co.uk/#safe=active&q=j4mb+strategic+review&*. So whoever made the edits did not need special insider knowledge, just access to a blog.

In addition your assertion that one person was making edits from Brighton is not supported by your 'evidence' there are multiple IP addresses from Brighton and the surrounding area, which could mean several different people making edits. There are men's rights groups based in Brighton, which could explain an interest in J4MB and mutiple people making edits (based on J4MB's blog). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.39.15 (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In the thread above I was told "There is no hint whatsoever of even the slightest link to Brighton not even any settlement within many miles of there." In fact - as you have pointed out yourself - there are multiple IP addresses from Brighton.

And for the third time, adding a WP:COI is not a "smear". Anyone still unhappy should take it to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for their view. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In terms of Brighton, the point is there's no link between the party and the Brighton area, if you want to alleged COI editing you need to show said link rather than just make vague predictions about how it might be theoretically possible becasue there's supposedly some group there which dares to support the human rights of half the population. Yes there is an IP that happens to be in Brighton, but so what? It means nothing. J4MB isn't in Brighton nor does it have any known links to the area. The fact that IP is in Brighton is about as relevant to proving a COI as an IP being in Outer Mongolia. To even hint at possible COI then for a start you'd need to prove editing from the J4MB HQ which seems to be Bath or Bedford (or perhaps from its candidates in Nottinghamshire), although even that wouldn't be enough to justify the tag if they weren't single purpose accounts. As for that IP somehow having secret insider knowledge of the strategic review, well, as highlighted above by another editor, the fact that a review was forthcoming was announced by Buchanan on the website on 24 September 2016 [j4mb.org.uk/2016/09/24/why-j4mb-will-shortly-announce-a-new-strategy-for-the-2020-general-election/] so all you've proved so far is that someone edits this page who also once read some words on the J4MB site and then added the material from the site to this article. That is the total sum of your evidence and thus the tag says removed until you can back it up with the slightest proof. Currently there is absolutely zero proof of COI editing. In fact, I'd suggest you strike all false claims above--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your post 7th January 2017 (my bold):

You can't just accuse random IPs of COI. The party appears to have links to Bedford, Nottinghamshire and more recently Maidenhead. There is no hint whatsoever of even the slightest link to Brighton not even any settlement within many miles of there. Anyone on the planet can read their site and then insert info from there. Your accusation is clearly 100% unsubstantiated and should be retracted.

I only compiled the list to show that your statement is palpably untrue. Your most recent statement To even hint at possible COI then for a start you'd need to prove editing from the J4MB HQ which seems to be Bath or Bedford (or perhaps from its candidates in Nottinghamshire), although even that wouldn't be enough to justify the tag if they weren't single purpose accounts. is also incorrect. It wouldn't matter if the person (or persons) demonstrating a COI were in Brighton, Outer Mongolia or the moon. puffery is puffery.

I added the COI for the reasons given at the beginning of this thread, nothing more, nothing less. Philip Cross has kindly gone through all the self-published rubbish that this article contained and removed the puffery, so there is now no longer a reason to restore the COI so I will leave it as it is. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you've still got it completely wrong. You can argue that the IP is biased, you can argue that it is a Single Purpose Account, can you argue they're using Peacock terms but you can't simply claim conflict of interest without providing a shred of evidence. You did at one point at least attempt to prove COI by pointing to alleged insider information the IP had about J4MB, but of course that was debunked 100% and thus the allegation remains completely unsubstantiated. Conflict of Interest is NOT bias. I'm not claiming the IP's edits are all fine (though most edits of the article from all sorts of various editors leave a hell of a lot to be desired), just that you're simply **using the wrong term**, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#notbias.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Mike Buchanan referring to this article, "Happily, somewhere there’s a sympathetic Wiki editor who keep the occasional eye on the site, adding and amending as he (or she) sees fit. (link). The dead-link that you reference [j4mb.org.uk/2016/09/24/why-j4mb-will-shortly-announce-a-new-strategy-for-the-2020-general-election/] was posted the exact same day as this diff.

WP:EXTERNALREL is very clear: How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. This article, prior to Philip's clean up was peppered with bias, and given Buchanan's own comments, the common sense conclusion is a COI. I am not restoring the COI due to the clean up. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of peacock term 18 January 2017

Removed the unsupported statement "J4MB is the only political party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys on many fronts." It's been three months since this diff for the editor to find a citation for such a claim.

The IP that added the claim has only ever made two other edits this one and this one where the name of the principal of Shoreham Academy was changed from Heidi Brown to Robert Mugabe and then restored a couple of minutes later. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional info:

After adding the peacock term template it was removed (diff) by another IP editor with the edit summary: "Statement true unless can be proved otherwise". I reinstated the template here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Shoreham is next door to Brighton. Emeraude (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow

Feminist manipulations of the J4MB Wikipedia entry. Just wow is all, and the edit referred to (diff) correctly done by @Philip Cross: removed a truly terrible piece of bias. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this blog entry. Philip Cross (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this here. The section in question I agree was correctly removed, which the J4MB would understand if they took a moment to understand the basic rules of using reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. To say nothing of avoiding personal attacks. It may be worth considering locking this article to prevent editing from an IP address, although to be honest I think this party is generating very little interest or coverage these days. Mramoeba (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle, there are enough editors who understand the rules. The editor does however need advice and the blog should be reported. There may be some newspaper interest. JRPG (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you do that JRPG? I wouldn't know the procedure. Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Protection request

Have requested page protection due to IP vandalism and public accusation of an editor here . Mramoeba (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed sources

I have gone through citations supposedly added to establish this group's significance but which seem only to promote it instead of advancing knowledge about it. I removed several citations in this edit and have managed to use many of them more appropriately, but include the following comments about my deletions.

• A Guardian "Pass Notes"-style article intended mainly to mock J4MB and Mike Buchanan. Does not include anything worthwhile which is not mentioned in better sources.
• An article by Michael Deacon, the Telegraph's political sketch writer which has the same function. Nothing contained in the piece to assist here.
• The January 2013 piece in the New Statesman by Rhiannon Lucy Coslett and Holly Baxter is perhaps the strongest of all the put-downs of Mike Buchanan. It includes a quotation from the opening of his book Feminism: The Ugly Truth which is so over the top it probably cannot be used in this Wikipedia article in case it begins to read like a non-neutral attack piece. "Feminism attracts little serious opposition in the developed world", Buchanan writes, "which is extraordinary given that it’s systematically and progressively assaulting men, women, marriage, the family, government, the legal system, the media, academia, capitalism and much else". Such quotes as this break the flow of an article and overwhelm whatever follows for several paragraphs.
• Page linking to an interview with Mike Buchanan on Jeremy Vine's BBC Radio 2 show in March 2013. No substantial printed content.

I have searched on Google to establish any notability for Mike Buchanan's brief association with the International Business Times, but I have found nothing which suggests it is worth mentioning. For this reason, I have deleted the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Now Mike Buchanan complains again about this article. See "The Wikipedia page on J4MB is becoming more misleading. Thanks, Philip Cross". I gave a thorough explanation of my deletions above in anticipation of such a reaction. With regret, I have just removed estimates for the rape and sexual assault of women, citing a 2015 IBT article, to avoid an edit war. In his latest anti-Wikipedia piece, it seems Buchanan is happy to quote an official claim of 980 for convictions of men for rape in 2013 without considering the vast number of unreported cases. Philip Cross (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

2015 general election mention

Why is it important to mention "the issue of rape and assaults annually committed against women" on a mens party article? There are plenty of other political parties who completely ignore male victims and concentrate only on female victims making out that DV and sexual assault are completely gendered issues. This feeds into the feminist narrative that "men are the problem". 40% of DV victims are male. Therefore it would be nice to revise the following section by leaving out the sentence about rape+assaults committed against women. It is not pertinent to the goals of the party and it is not important that a party that concentrates on male disadvantages also mention female rape + Assaults, especially in the currrent political climate:

"The section on sexual abuse concentrates on female offenders, and the issue of rape and assaults annually committed against women in the UK is avoided.[11]"

(scrap the second part of the sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel Grude (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

We keep sections in order here, so I moved your comments. Let me put it as simply as I can: Men Rape and Assault Women. These are crimes which have a low conviction rate, most of which are not even reported to the police. Now, if a self-styled mens' rights party ignores the issue of rape, or makes excuses for rapists, as has been alleged, it becomes a party of men's licence. In downplaying the issue of violence against half of the population, in fact women constitute about 52% of the population, the attitudes of such a party becomes a social and political issue. I don't consider any J4MB sources and claims credible, and no one in any reliable source would seem to do so either. For the record, not that it is relevant, I am male, as my name ought to imply. (See the blog citation in the last section.) Philip Cross (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

May I also point out (as mentioned on the page) that the party's own website posted an article entitled 13 reasons women lie about being raped so it strikes me that the issue of rape and assaults against women is something the party is keen to address when it fits their own narrative. Mramoeba (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. The article about women having been *proven* to lie about it is necessary because it describes precisely the reason why there are low conviction rates for this crime - with your built in assumption of guilt of all the exonerated accused. And it is necessary for the reason that in the feminist prerogative there is a need of driving up conviction rapes by jailing even innocent people and affecting change in the legislation (Take Bill C51, Canada, as an example) that even forbid's evidence such as text messages and verbal statements about and from malicious accusers that were used in cases to prove an accused's innocence will in the future not be permissible. Listen and Believe is a bad policy when the law is stacked in such a way that it can be used as a weapon - the Jian Ghomeshi case is a good example. As to your second claim "most of which are not even reported to the police" - some hard evidence needed; may I put it to you that the same could be claimed for [domestic] violence and sexual assault against men. Axel Grude (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Axel Grude, I think you are replying to my comments rather than those of Mramoeba. As Wikipedia editors, we can only use reliable sources making points relevant to J4MB, although the J4MB website/Mike Buchanan's blog, is admissible for this article. What we cannot do is use sources which support the opinions of J4MB which do not mention this party to develop an argument. On Wikipedia, this is not allowed and considered synthesis, or more widely original research. The problem with attempting to be as fair as possible to parties with the support of tiny minorities (both J4MB candidates in 2015 lost their deposits) is that positive third-party sources about such groupings are going to be scarce. Any such concerning J4MB appear to be non-existent, or at least sources added by apparent sympathisers have been justifiably removed within Wikipedia policies. Non-mainstream claims, like those from websites in the area J4MB operates in, are liable to be deleted from Wikipedia articles. Might I suggest your time supporting so-called 'men's rights' would be better spent setting up your own website or contributing to those which exist already. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote yesterday: "I don't consider any J4MB sources and claims credible". Mike Buchanan has mentioned this comment following his most recent blog post about this article (see the end of the last section for the link), but my assertion is consistent with Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This document states: "However, the best sources may indicate that a subject does not have equally valid sides. This is why Wikipedia gives the most space and prominence to descriptions of a subject that conform to the expert understanding while marginalizing in space and prominence the minority understanding, or even excluding some descriptions or issues that have no reliable sources". And: "Many statements made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere". As I indicate above, J4MB material can be included here, but there are limits. "This is irrelevant to our task of writing a mainstream encyclopedia, and should not be used as justification to create an article that differs from that of a mainstream encyclopedia. Unless a dispute is verifiably acknowledged to exist in high-quality sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia". This directly applies to the fringe attitudes of J4MB towards the rape and sexual assault of women; unflattering assertions about this are made in many cited sources. Supportive claims coming from sympathisers (original research again) on this issue are thus inappropriate for the article because any apparent minority 'scholarship' is lacking in general acceptance. Philip Cross (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Membership numbers

Just out of interest the party's accounts for the year ending 31 December 2016 shows the income from membership fees as £1,985. The party has different membership rates available from £5.00 per month to £100 per month.

• If all the party members are paying £5.00 per month (£60 per year) then the party has 33 members.
• If there is:

• one member who has paid £100 per month (£1,200 per year),
• one a member who has paid £50 per month (£600 per year),
• one member who paid £10 per month (£120 per year) and,
• one member who paid £5.00 per month (£60 per year),

then the party has just 4 members.

It is pretty crude and does not take account of direct debits, members taking out their membership part way through the year etc. – and therefore should not be used as proof of membership numbers, but it does give a ball park figure for the party of somewhere between 4 and 33 members. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)