Jump to content

Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Male studies

I've removed the section about "Male Studies". A large section sourced to a blog linked to the Washington City paper is not appropriate, per WP:UNDUE. Even the blog talks about about how this is a controversial minority group in the academic community. And there is no direct link to men's rights either. --Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of thought to consider: It's conference that is attended by men's right organizations. It supports men's right issues. And, it is easy to actually get the words "men's rights" (cited) into this section and find a better reference. It seems a bit of shame since that's what's leading to good credible information about men's rights.
While I'm in the midst of editing, I'm going to put the {{in use}} template on to help avoid edit conflicts.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you got an edit conflict. I'll respect the inuse template if you use it in the future.
I don't really agree that papers given at such a conference are good sources of information, except possibly about the claims of men's rights activists. You'll notice, on that topic, that I have attributed a bunch of statements of fact that you had added cited to Kumar, because we shouldn't repeat activist claims about various "facts" in an encyclopedic voice. In general, conference presentations are not generally considered to be high quality sources, because there is very little of the peer review that WP needs. --Slp1 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, good to know about conference presentations.
I wasn't questioning the source, I was questioning the removal of the Male studies topic altogether, but I'll yield to you. You know more about this than I do.
Thanks for the catching the needed edits! I dove right into this article, and no quetion it was the deep end of the pool, so I really appreciate that you're watching over the article!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I think male studies is relevant to this topic and I'd like to see the section restored, but I do understand the reasons for removal - more authoritative source(s) are necessary for the section. I'd like to direct Slpl to the Foundation For Male Studies: http://www.malestudies.org/. I think that the information at this site could serve as good foundation (pun) for this section, and perhaps members of it's board would be willing to provide some additional reference material. I'd take a crack at it myself (if allowed), but I'm too new here to take that plunge yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Capitan Kirk (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I added that section when I was confused about the purpose of this particular article, perhaps it would be a good idea to start an article called "Male studies" (which seems to be distinct from Men's studies) with the previous info and provide a "See also" link. Thoughts about that? If you're interested, I can find the content and help out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Men's Rights page and Men's Rights Movement Page

My understanding was that the Men's Rights Movement page should re-direct to Men's Rights, however it appears that it has not been created and made into it's own page. JayHammer mentions this however, I do not see this consensus anywhere on the page. I'm going to re-combine the articles, as I believe this was done by mistake. TickTock2 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm really confused. "Men's rights movement" is clearly a topic in it's own right from many secondary sources - and it is distinct from other men's movements that involve gender rights. To lump the very conservative "Men's rights movement" in with the topic "Men's rights" seems to be is a large part of what is causing the neutrality issue with this article. For instance, both men and women can lobby for men's rights, from the most liberal to most conservative perspectives.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean? How is it distinct from the movement that includes gender rights. The movement is still the same regardless of who advocates for it. TickTock2 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it really gets to the definition of what "Men's rights" in the "Men's rights movement" means as compared to a broader definition of men's rights. From what I've read, the "Men's right movement" believes that men in the Men's rights movement believe that men are the oppressed (primary providers, high rates of suicide, die earlier), while there are many men who are looking for parity, especially regarding father's rights that are not part of the "men's rights movement." Further, from what I've read, the men's rights movement may seek remedies that promote men's rights over women's rights, which would not be the case with groups of men who seek to promote both men's and women's rights, like the profeminists.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree with that definition furthermore I would encourage you to read more about the Men's rights movement (especially articles not written by feminist as attacks on Men's Rights), as I would imagine you know the debate is a very heated giving both critical approach such as I can assure you that there are Men's rights who believe that feminist do the same, while in reality that is very often not the case (although it happens in both cases). I would shy away from making the rare case the "common" example so to speak. Does that make sense to you? TickTock2 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that the definition I provided of "men's rights movement" does not apply to all movements - for instance I wouldn't say it applied to men's liberation, profeminists, mythopoetic men's movement, gay male liberation, or Promise Keepers.
The definition that I provided came from books written by men and women - and also came from "Men's rights" organization sites themselves. Because I think this is the crux of the problem ("men's rights activism" entangled with broader "men's rights" (similar in concept to women's rights, child's rights, elder's rights), I would be very happy to provide a list of secondary sources and men's rights organization sites that provide the definition that I mentioned.
I have tried very hard to find other definitions for the "men's rights movement" other than what I stated, but if I've missed something, that would be very helpful to know! I came into this article with zero bias about "men's rights" activism and was very lost for a time because the article entangles "men's rights activism" (or movement) with "men's rights".--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I question that statement with all due regard and respect to you. For example a quick glance to look up What is Men's Rights reveals http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/ says on their website on the main page "The National Center For Men, incorporated in 1987, is dedicated to the advocacy of men's equal rights. We educate the public about how men have been hurt by sex discrimination and we also counsel individuals and families who have been damaged by discrimination against men" I would say that's a clear example as an exact opposite of what you are referring to. Another one from The Australian Men's strictly says that all men and women are equal and neither are superior to each other. That was just a quick look. TickTock2 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate your care and sensitivity in this topic, I know it's a touchy subject.

I'm sorry if the definition I provided sounded as if it spoke for all men's right organizations; I was summing up what I read in books and on sites. I hadn't seen one men's rights site that said that they wanted men's rights at the expense of women's rights, but I had read on a few men's rights organization sites that men felt oppressed by higher rates of suicide, deaths at younger age, etc.

My key point, though, is that the "men's rights movement" is related to "men's rights activism" - and does not include other men's movements, such as men's liberation, profeminists, mythopoetic men's movement, gay male liberation, or Promise Keepers. Does that make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You welcome, I'm just trying to reach us to a much better understanding of what we should and should not be making this article about. I realize you were summing up what you believe you read, but feeling oppressed is not the same as doing something at the expense of something else. It would be very easy to write an article about Women's Rights how it was at the expense of Men's Rights, but we both know that to be not true.
I'm not sure that I understand the point here - and where in particular in the article there's a concern.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I still believe your turning this page for the worse with the edits you are doing. I simply am unable to maintain the high level of activity in which you are so there's no way I can attempt to make a coherent article from your edits. TickTock2 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I have been lost at times on this article, in large part because of the confusion of the specific men's rights movement to a broader category of men's rights, and I am stumbling my way through. That's why I ask questions. I'm not sure, though, what specifically your issue is and how I can make constructive changes that help address the "neutrality" concern and the "world view" concern that put this article on probation. I may be wrong, and I respectfully submit, that it seems like some WP rules are given at the expense of WP:Common sense.
As an aside, it would be incredibly helpful if we could develop a problem statement for the current article, including agreement on the definition of men's rights, which would then help to ensure that there's movement in the right direction with edits. I've been trying to move forward with the comments I've received and am very disappointed to hear that I may be going in the wrong direction.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't see the issue with including Men's Rights and Men's Rights movement together in one. I think we will end up with a much more fluid article (and why the Men's Rights Movement article was created was completely against what we decided for). The neutrality and world view issue is not why this was orginally put on probation. There was a lot to it, like the calling on of one of the editors place of a work, a lot of reverts, people not following directions etc..
I'm okay with that, I've just seen the page that went from something that at least made sense, to basically a list of semi-organized issues. I hope you do eventually move this page in the right directions, but every-time that someone has attempted to weed this article down, they weed it down and we end up with less information then we originally started and in most cases in worst shape then before as well. This page is filled with personal bias from editors with many different points (against and for Men's Rights) TickTock2 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm with TickTock2. It is good to be bold, Carole, but going against what was decided, and without discussion, as was suggested above, is quite problematic. I'm going to replace the material in this article until there is a clear consensus to make the change. --Slp1 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stab at problem statement

Here's my stab at a problem statement and definition for input, focusing on the key issues with the article itself:

  • Neutrality, reliable sources and neutral interpretation - There is some information in the article that reflects the view of a small population of people and not the general community. There is a large, complicated piece of clean-up to review existing material and ensure that it comes from reliable sources, is interpretted correctly and speaks to the general definition of men's rights (as opposed to one specific faction). From what I understand, one example may be (would need to be discussed) the "Refugee" issue in Australia.
    • Key issues:
      • WP:RS - Reliable sources
      • WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view, including inappropriate weight of men's victimization.
      • WP:NOR - No original research, in this case meaning, extrapolation of information from the source that wasn't there.
  • World view - Much of the information in the article reflects the views of UK, US, Australia and to a small extent, India. Part of this is because men's rights issues are more significantly felt in the western world where there have been more inroads from feminism. The article should reflect the views of more countries, where possible, and clarify the extent to where issues are of concern.
    • It sounds as if this has less to do with "global" coverage of the topics than of a singular viewpoint.
  • Definition of men's rights - Men's rights are sought to be equitable and fair gender rights, sought by many men's movements with differing concerns and perspectives. It is not limited to, "men's rights activism" or the "men's rights movement".--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Heavy reliance on "Men's right activism" content mentioned on the noticeboard.
I've made additions above (in green) based upon what I found on the noticeboard .--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The RS issue is an ongoing issue, and I imagine it will continue to be honest with you, as even CNN has been argued to not be a reliable source in this article, or even editions of book have said different things (which the many husbands discussion happened at one point I was involved with). The NPOV and UNDUE also dealing with women's rights (and issues) so that's been an ongoing issue but overall I concur. I agree with the NOR issue completely. TickTock2 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as the World view, the largest issue is there isn't any sources (that I have found) to support a more global view on Men's Rights. I welcome more sources but we simply haven't found any. TickTock2 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on the definition, it needs to encompass more of the movement, such as Father's Movement, Promise Keepers (sometimes affiliating with Men's Rights sometimes not). TickTock2 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I would keep in mind the probation issue isn't really about this, it was more that we were fighting on several levels of issues and then the addition of people calling Kevin (one of the editors) place of work to personally harass him. TickTock2 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, good distinction about the reason for the probation. I saw that, too.

Update

I've updated this with a summary/paraphrase of TickTock2's comments (bold) regarding the issues specific to the article written up on the noticeboard.

  • Neutrality, reliable sources and neutral interpretation - There is some information in the article that reflects the view of a small population of people and not the general community. There is a large, complicated piece of clean-up to review existing material and ensure that it comes from reliable sources, is interpretted correctly and speaks to the general definition of men's rights (as opposed to one specific faction). From what I understand, one example may be (would need to be discussed) the "Refugee" issue in Australia.
    • Key issues:
      • WP:RS - Reliable sources. Agreed, complicated by concern about what is considered a reliable source for this article. I'm guessing, then, that a strategy is needed to identify reliable sources and/or provide notes when there are conflicting, extreme opinions either way (extreme feminism, extreme masculinism).
      • WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view, including inappropriate weight of men's victimization or the feminist perspective.
      • WP:NOR - No original research, in this case meaning, extrapolation of information from the source that wasn't there. Agreed.
  • World view - Much of the information in the article reflects the views of UK, US, Australia and to a small extent, India. Part of this is because men's rights issues are more significantly felt in the western world where there have been more inroads from feminism. The article should reflect the views of more countries, where possible, and clarify the extent to where issues are of concern.
    • It sounds as if this has less to do with "global" coverage of the topics than of a singular viewpoint.
I'm quite confused who is saying what and why above, but I will reiterate "sources, sources, sources". NPOV comes from summarizing what the best available sources say about a topic, and we don't exclude good sources because they come from a particular perspective.
A case in point is the above listing of men's groups. All the reliable sources I have seen state that those listed are subcategories of the men's movement; where is the evidence that mythopoetic or profeminist men seek men's rights? --Slp1 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1) I notice the sentencing disparities paragraph has been removed. It was sourced properly, but some people didn't seem to like it. You may wish to look back at it for something to add.

2) In addition, in India, Adultery is a crime that only a man can commit. Women can not even be charged as an abettor. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2687318.ece

3) You might also be interested in knowing that the UN just told Israel it should eliminate it's Tender years policay, as it is discriminatory. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150455#.TuBNi2Pj7ig --70.27.8.76 (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply:
1) The sentencing disparities items were not deleted. See Men's rights#Other items.
2) Regarding adultery in India, I read the article and agree with what you took away from it. To give a full view of the situation, are there other factors that affect this decision (e.g., cultural norms to punish women when they are adulterers, etc.) to give a balanced, neutral view of the situation. If not, I see your point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
3) The article is very interesting. It seems that it's best suited to the Father's rights movement article, or maybe a comment in the Men's rights#Father's rights or child custody section that world-wide, the only country with a "tender years" clause is Israel, and there's pressure from the UN to make that change... something to that effect.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I found that article very interesting, but I'm not seeing anything about it in mainstream news. Interesting.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's a posting from the UN site [UN site]--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to say again that this article must start with what reliable sources consider to be men's rights. It is unverifiable, original research and synthesis to include interesting factoids that individual editors feel have something to do with men's rights. The Indian story doesn't make the connection anywhere. The Israeli one comes closer by at least talking about discrimination against men, but the author, Gil Ronen, is a men's rights activist, and there are lots of questions about the reliability of israelnationalnews when this has been discussed at the RSN. Has this been reported anywhere else?
Hopefully over Christmas I will have the time to go through this article and actually replace/remove the OR that is still included, but in the meantime at the very least we shouldn't be adding to it.--Slp1 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to echo Slp1 here - wikipedia articles are based upon and reflect the content of reliable sources that deal with the subject of articles in a substantive fashion - nothing else. Talking about what might be a good idea to add is a cul de sac and waste of time. In my last post Carole I listed some sources[1] - I strongly suggest basing further revision of this article on such material (ie papers and books that deal with the concept of Men's rights in depth) rather than anything else--Cailil talk 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing original research

As promised, I am slowly going to remove or replace sections that are improperly sourced or original research. I am starting with the refugee section. The one citation given does not speak about men's rights or discriminatory practices. The entire section appears to be the opinion of the editor who added it, with the citation to provide an example. I have spent the last 30 minutes looking for other potential sources about refugee issues and men's rights, and have found nothing. As a result, I am deleting the section. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll leave you to it. If the men's right movement is back in this article, and there's an exclusion of other men's movement, I'm sure I'm no help here. Best of luck!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Today, I've looked at the pensions and social security section. Some of the section is unsourced. The rest of it is sourced to government documents describing social security provision with no reference to men's rights or any form of discrimination. The current section fails WP:V and WP:NOR. In this case, after a fair bit of research I have been able to find reliable secondary sources making clear that these issues are of concern to men's rights activists. I will be deleting the current material and replacing with what I have found. --Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tackled a section called "political representation" today. I have revamped the section to be more global, and removed some material about timing of things than seems to have been plumb wrong. I have renamed the section "governmental structures", since I think the previous title was somewhat misleading. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have worked on the false accusations of rape section.

  • The first sentence was unsourced. The rest of the section has significant problems with the misrepresentation of sources and OR.
  • I removed one source [2] which doesn't mention men's rights, and more worryingly has been used inappropriately. The article in question mostly discusses that a young girl may have been too aggressively pursued by the law after making an apparently false rape claim, rather than the actions against "false accusers" is too lenient.
  • The source used to support the rape anonymity and evidence requirement sections do not mention men's rights and neither fully support the material included. For example, it is not clear from the BBC source] that "Women Against Rape" complained about the proposed law- they are just mentioned agreeing with it.
  • The Boston Law article has been entirely misrepresented. The author does indeed mention some states require corroboration for rape, but does not conclude that "Thus the issue of false accusations of rape is very serious." In fact, the author argues the exact opposite, that corroboration is an inappropriate requirement. e.g. "The prompt complaint requirement, corroboration requirement, and cautionary instructions in the criminal law of rape evinced the belief that, because women lie about rape, men accused of it need special legal protection beyond that which the law affords defendants accused of other crimes.....It is important to connect these retrograde policies with their discredited past and reject them both in the remaining state laws in which they withstand old age and in campus disciplinary procedures in which they are just being born."

The magnitude of the problems with verifiability is very concerning. Evidently, every reference in this article will need to be specifically examined. I have replaced the content with sourced material. --Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Today I removed the section about Carol Liu and the California legislation. No connection was made to men's rights issues in the sources given, and I couldn't find any reliable sources that did. I have therefore removed the section per V, OR and undue weight. --Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I worked on the education section today. As with other sections, I have removed some material that was unsourced and some OR material that had no overt connection made with men's rights. I have replaced it with sourced material; there were some good sources for this section. --Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the men's rights movement

Most of the criticism of the men's rights movement is on blogs, but there are a few reliable sources that could be used to build a small section:

Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've actually been finding a fair amount of criticism/disagreement in the sources that I have been reading, but I haven't been including it because the criticism is more about the overall approach of the men's rights movements than the specific issues I have been tackling. I don't really like criticism sections, preferring to integrate the text, but it may be the way to go, at least in the short term. --Slp1 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
So wait, this article -is- about MRA's and the MRM now? Arkon (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well part of the article is, it seems. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I'll go back through the archives and readd the material that was removed previously. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
In my edits I'm sticking strictly to the methodology of looking for material about "men's rights" in a particular topic area. It turns out that when you do that, to date the sources almost always turn out to be about the views of the Men's rights folk, and so I have been attributing the opinions as I found them in the sources. I'm not sure what you are planning to replace, Arkon, but I strongly feel that we should stick to the approach of looking for high quality sources with direct connections to the topic of "Men's rights". The article may end up being mainly about MRAs and the MRM, but we don't know that for sure yet.--Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

why is it that you can't cite any criticisms of the men's rights movement in here? whether it from MRAs or third parties? this is the only such page without a balancing section. a lot of the stuff here is pro-men's rights OR and kept in good faith, yet everything else is rapidly deleted. it's strange, valerie solanas is allowed to be labelled feminist, yet there's an editorial policy to give MRAs a benefit of the doubt which even extends to publicising an MRA's didactic biased "no true scotsman" statements. Paintedxbird (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a double standard: Valerie Solanas is not listed on the page for feminism, nor radical feminism except as a See Also. She is mentioned in Anarcho-feminism, but none of these articles have a criticism section. This is not unusual: Many editors dislike criticism sections. Ultimately though it's still just precedent: here at Wikipedia all edits will be challenged for elements such as verifiability, accuracy, neutral point of view, reliability of sources. We're about making descriptive statements of our target, not judgements. As for your contention that only pro-men's rights content is kept, you may want to see what the other side thinks.Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

fair enough. still, feminism has antifeminism, masculism, men and feminism, this page, etc all providing opposing views. whereas men's rights has no analogue. also, they would complain; they can't even understand what NPOV/RS/NOR means. Paintedxbird (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point there, though I should qualify that by saying only three sentences in this article are critical of the feminist movement by name, and there are at least as many criticisms of the MRM scattered throughout the article. The other articles have even fewer direct criticisms, which also tend to be balanced in count. On another note though, by pushing for those quotation marks around "the feminist health movement" are you denying that feminism has a branch supporting women's health? Our article on the subject is labeled as a part of feminism: if you read the source article by Flood, that's exactly what he's referring to. For example, if you Google women's health feminist the first result is the Feminist Women's Health Center. Flood's argument is that it is unreasonable for people to blame these structures. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

i thought he was describing an idea of the health service. no i'm not disputing that. fixed it back. Paintedxbird (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Use of the Term Men's Rights Activism

This section should excised. I think it's a good placeholder for a topic of value to the article but it currently contains content that almost exclusively cites the "The Good Men Project" -- a pro-feminist project that is supported by Ms. Magazine and ridiculed by MRA's (although the article implies that the TGMP is part of the MRM.) While the Good Men Project is a Wikipedia worthy blog its articles are not worthy sources for content in other Wikipedia articles. The blogs written by contributors to TGMP do not meet WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore there are piles of books churned out by Women's Studies programs that already speak to the feminist impression of Men's Rights and the MRM which do not have the sourcing issues that TGMP does. I won't even go into the hyperbole it contains which conflates men's rights activism as "glorifying" the murder of women...--Cybermud (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

men's rights activists can't be pro-feminist? "no true MRA"? i'd like to excise all the masculism from self-proclaimed feminists who are ridiculed on that page. i guess we're both outta luck. if you read the text it doesn't equate MRAs with glorifying murder, it simply describes some who do. Paintedxbird (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith on your rhetorical question even as you assume bad faith and comport yourself in an incivil manner by commenting that if I were to actually "read the [actual] text" I am commenting on I might come to a different conclusion than the one I did by, presumably, commenting on something I didn't actually read. So yes, MRA's are pretty strongly anti-feminist. There are certainly some notable MRA's who self-identify as feminists Camille Paglia, Daphne Patai and Warren Farrell come to mind but they still remain anti-feminist in most of their views, are respected by MRA's and refiled by feminists as a general rule. "Feminist," like many labels, means many things to many people and the reasons an individual chooses to take up that moniker on a personal level, can be as varied as the individual persons who chose to do so. When I talk about the pro-feminist (admittedly also a label) philosophies of others in general I am applying that criterion in a less subjective and, hopefully, more meaningful manner. If my telling you that MRA's and modern-day feminists are often times diametrically opposed to each other comes as news to you I suggest you limit your contributions to the article Men's Rights to copyediting and stylistic issues as you may lack the background in the subject matter to be able to contribute to the content in a constructive manner. As for your comment, "i'd like to excise all the masculism from self-proclaimed feminists who are ridiculed on that page. i guess we're both outta luck." I truly no idea what you're referring to but I will say that luck has nothing to do with it. Perhaps now we can move past this and acknowledge that TGMP is not a WP:RS?--Cybermud (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
"Bellanger and others within the men's rights movement have fingered other MRAs as radicals[92], criticizing the use of language such as in a radio podcast that called most women semi-human.[91] Glenn Sacks of Massachusetts advocacy group Fathers & Families has questioned bloggers for glorifying murderers Darren Mack" so "questioning bloggers" implies "all MRAs"? i don't see it, but i'd be happy to quantify it specifically. i know most MRAs are antifeminist, but it doesn't mean they're "true MRAs" any more than Christina Hoff Summers is a "true feminist". unless you can prove otherwise removing it wouldn't be NPOV. also, the claim (podcast calling women semi-human) you're disputing is cited within the source's text "http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/03/02/an-introduction-to-the-mens-movement". TGMP is a webzine with editorial oversight. i think it's a RS. Paintedxbird (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Your use of pronouns, bad grammar, and un-closed quotations marks is confusing and even where I can understand what you're trying to say I don't appreciate the relevance of it. Also not sure who/what you are quoting when you say "tll MRA's", "true MRA's", or "true feminist" as I would never presume that I, or anyone else, can define what "all" of any social group says or does, nor what constitute a "true" member of it. Perhaps you would clarify if doing so is germane to the article in question? In any case TGMP is not a WP:RS on anything other than, perhaps, TGMP itself. I should think that other editors here who constantly exhort "using the highest quality sources available" should be agreeing with me, but perhaps there is a double-standard at work when the sources in question confirm their pre-existing biases.--Cybermud (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
i'll overlook your irrationality and defensiveness. i was referring to what you said. "I won't even go into the hyperbole it contains which conflates men's rights activism as "glorifying" the murder of women". the sentence you're referring to says "Glenn Sacks of Massachusetts advocacy group Fathers & Families has questioned bloggers for glorifying murderers". in the source some MRAs equate Darren Mack and Herbert Chalmers as being like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. why do you think it's wrong to recognise that they call themselves MRAs other than the fact you find it unflattering? it sounds like you're trying to define MRAs as antifeminist to me seeing as you specifically criticise some sources as being "pro-feminist". you dislike TGMP, but i haven't heard anything except anecdotal smear and innuendo against a notable webzine in way of reasons why it shouldn't be accepted especially when the source identifies it's evidence. Paintedxbird (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please indent your posts by using ":", as it makes it harder to follow conversation threads otherwise. You should also avoid calling people irrational and defensive as it is also wikipedia policy to assume good faith and, for the record, I have nothing to be defensive or irrational about though you may want to consider reading the article projection. Unfortunately your clarification is still not clear. What does what Glenn Sacks says about bloggers have to do with this article? Why are you claiming I think it's wrong to recognize they (who is they by the way) call themselves MRA's and why do you, erroneously think I find it unflattering? Why is calling some sources "pro-feminist" a form of "criticism" rather than a simple statement of fact? And why do you say I dislike the TGMP simply because I, quite reasonably, say it is not a reliable source? If your "notable webzine" identifies its sources why don't you go to them directly. I know there are admins editing this article who exhort others to follow a large number of wikipedia policies that you are flagrantly breaking, first and foremost wp:agf and wp:rs. If you insist on this route and they cannot, or will not, advise you of the error of your ways I will open an WP:Request for comment on your behavior and ask for input from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding your inappropriate use of the TGMP. Having said that, I will once again remove the poorly sourced and confused content in question.--Cybermud (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"What does what Glenn Sacks says about bloggers have to do with this article?" he's one of the most notable MRAs around. his comments have to do with recognising a school of thought within men's rights. the heading was called "Use of the term MRA".
"Why is calling some sources "pro-feminist" a form of "criticism" rather than a simple statement of fact?" because you said: "This (Use of the Term Men's Rights Activism) section should excised. I think it's a good placeholder for a topic of value to the article but it currently contains content that almost exclusively cites the "The Good Men Project" -- a pro-feminist project that is supported by Ms. Magazine and ridiculed by MRA's" if you accept there's nothing necessarily inconsistent with pro-feminism/feminism and men's rights then why do you claim it as a reason for removal?
"If your "notable webzine" identifies its sources why don't you go to them directly." that'd be original research. also, the blog doesn't have a wikipage.
"why do you say I dislike the TGMP simply because I, quite reasonably, say it is not a reliable source?" i simply asked why you thought it was a questionable source. you linked me to the article, but haven't explained your process. if you check you'll find that the TGMP is staffed by professional writers and editors.
"If you insist on this route and they cannot, or will not, advise you of the error of your ways I will open an WP:Request for comment on your behavior and ask for input from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding your inappropriate use of the TGMP." all i asked for was your reasoning. you're also removing citations for being "pro-feminist". i'd like to resolve this so i think that'd be good. Paintedxbird (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
i've waited a day for a response so i'm now restoring the "use of the term MRA" section. feel free to either reply here or ask for dispute resolution. Paintedxbird (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please phrase whatever it is you'd like a response to in the form of a question or coherent comment whose content can be easily identified. I don't have time to try to interpret what you are saying or extract it from your badly formatted responses. I am really not trying to be difficult here but a little effort on your part to be comprehensible goes a long way. Are you new to Wikipedia? There really should be no ambiguity to the fact that this section is very badly sourced.. it points to a blogging site run by non-journalists and non-experts and then starts pointing to pod-casts. Even if it were well-sourced it's confused and un-encyclopedic.--Cybermud (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was simple enough seeing as it was written in the format of quoting your comments and a response by myself. Must be too complicated. Paintedxbird (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess so. If there's any part of it that you'd like a response to please highlight it again as if you were talking to a child so I can respond because saying things like:

"If your "notable webzine" identifies its sources why don't you go to them directly." that'd be original research. also, the blog doesn't have a wikipage.

seems like gibberish to me.--Cybermud (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Tempting, but I think I'd just get a different form of passive-aggressiveness in response. Feel free to report this comment to whoever you like. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Pot, meet Kettle.--Cybermud (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Paintedxbird. I'd agree with others that this section wasn't the greatest in terms of sourcing and content. There is probably something small to be said about the few "fringe" men's rights activists who have used unpleasant tactics and received coverage in mainstream reliable sources, but it is always best to stick to the highest quality sources such as books, newspapers, journal articles etc. Websites aren't the best. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Identifying sources

I seem to have had this conversation at least a dozen times on gender related articles but feminist sources for articles related to Men's Rights should be identified as such. This article is literally filled with qualifiers like "Men's rights activists claim.." but then includes content from feminist (and misandric) sources like Flood and Kimmel and pretends they are somehow neutral and require no qualification. Even worse feminist sources like TGMP are painted as MRM sources (in which case they also violate wp:RS.) Whatever the solution here it should be consistent. My preference is to have qualifiers identifying the ideological biases of both masculist and feminist sources, but qualifying one and not qualifying the other is totally unjustifiable and a symptom of the fact that almost all non-feminist editors have been driven from this article. I appreciate the fact that many people immediately ignore any research identified as "feminist" due to all the junk science and research that's come out of the their advocacy based scholarship but there's no justification for hiding the fact that feminist research is.. well feminist.--Cybermud (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To make my point more concrete with one example (of several that exist) the section "Health" has two paragraphs. The first starts with:

"Men's rights activists view the health issues faced by men and their shorter life spans as compared to women as evidence of discrimination and oppression."

The second paragraph starts with

"Michael Messner[58] and other gender studies authors[52][59] critique the claims, stating that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by men"

Creating a situation where gender ideologues who support the feminist view that all men are rapists are simply identified as "gender studies authors" whereas anyone who supports a contrarian view is labeled as an "activist" (ie non-academic.)--Cybermud (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the Paintedxbird section because of two reasons: poor sourcing and too much in-universe navel-gazing. I expect that a discussion of the use of the term "men's rights activism" would begin and end with dispassionate scholarly analysis, not blog posts hosted by participants. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
While it's always tricky labeling someone who is expected to be giving a neutral overview by their politics, I agree with the statement that feminist authors should be identified as such, on the grounds of the relationship (or at least widely perceived relationship) between men's rights and antifeminism. If a critic may be a political enemy, this is important to note because it effects the credibility of their personal assessments. When I did a copyedit of this article a while back I changed the wording to "gender studies authors" as it had been a highly vague "academics" and I compared each author cited based on personal bios and noted they were involved primarily in the field of gender studies. I don't recall any of these bios espousing feminism, so to identify them as such you'll need to find a reliable source, or an acknowledgement within the sources already cited. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Warren Farrell and other writers are quoted by the article, the sources are non-NPOV. why is one group who claims advocacy for men's rights allowed and another removed based on a subjective belief on what should constitute men's rights as Cybermud has shown. once again, i'm asking why is criticism being censored? "navel gazing"? if you can have feminists commenting on radical feminism then why can't you have MRAs commenting on their own radicals? Paintedxbird (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Really!? You have a problem with quoting Warren Farrell in an article on Men's Rights and you're pushing the TGMP as a reliable source? I still have a hard time following what you're saying with the way you seem to jump from one half-finished idea to another but, in case it's even relevant (i'm not sure), sources don't need to be NPOV, articles do. No one here is censoring anything that I've seen over the past few days. All I've asked for is sources that don't suck and for feminist sources to be properly identified as such. If it's at all germane to the article, could you explain what it is that "User:Cybermud has shown, once again?" --Cybermud (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, in reality, saying "Gender Studies" rather than feminist (or Women's Studies) is a way of putting lipstick on a pig. Women's Studies university programs changed their name to Gender Studies to signal inclusiveness of homosexual issues and co-opt the creation of Men's Studies programs by allowing them (academic feminists) to claim that a generic, and inclusive, program now existed (notwithstanding that the curriculum and professors didn't change at all.) While anyone familiar with the history of the "academic arm of feminism" that is Women's Studies knows that "Gender Studies" is a euphemism for Women's Studies which is, according to their own mission statements, a supporter of the feminist political movement, the average Wikipedia reader will not make that connection and may believe there actually exists something called Gender Studies that does not have a Pro-Feminist bias (it does not), notwithstanding nascent efforts to create "Male Studies" programs at the university level.--Cybermud (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
like i said, Cybermud in his own words is trying to narrow the article to a specific subjective viewpoint based on his own personal and narrow view of men's rights. Paintedxbird (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


At some point perhaps an admin will admonish you for your behavior though I think that, in the meantime, they are hoping that dealing with your bad behavior will try my patience enough that they can find some reason to remove me as well. Unfortunately for you, and them, that won't happen in the foreseeable future. Every viewpoint is subjective, though, for my part, I actually do want a quality, NPOV article and am not here to POV push anything to the point that it unbalances the article. At the moment I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases. Heaven forbid someone who actually believes that men's rights is a worthwhile topic and political movement would be one of the editors of the article Men's Rights right? The contrarian view you are pushing is already well represented enough (though you are welcome to continue editing if you can do so without making false allegations against me.) I will continue to edit this article regardless of the incivility of editors who disagree with me and apply double-standards to WP policies.. but it would really be nice if you allowed me to do that without all the drama, hoopla, personal attacks and gibberish.--Cybermud (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

i don't know what i'm supposed to be accused of other than incivility, which i've stopped. it's you who refuses to engage with others and explain your decisions according to editorial policy. you can't have an NPOV article by censoring pro-feminists MRAs and internal/external criticism. antifeminist MRAs aren't entitled to monopolise the definiton of men's rights and the desire to do so has NOTHING to do with quality. wp:NPOV "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view." wp:v "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true." i'm sorry if it's upsetting but all users are allowed their opinions and have the same rights to challenge editions based on policy. WP:NOR "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." Paintedxbird (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very familiar with WP policies, what I don't understand is why you are quoting them to me. You are the one who was aggressively pushing TGMP as a WP:RS and becoming hostile and insulting when challenged on it. You also continue to accuse me of POV pushing and censorship when there is absolutely no evidence to support those claims whatsoever. The ONLY edits I've made to this article in months were to remove material that was so poorly sourced it may as well have been unsourced, add that "protector" was one of men's primary traditional sex roles and qualify the opinions of pro-feminist sources as being pro-feminist sources. Contrary to the assumptions you have made about me, I do want an NPOV article and care about the quality of WP, both in terms of this article, and in general.
I see sections all over this article that begin with "Men's rights activists believe/claim/assert..." but then the contrarian sections written by pro-feminist sources are not qualified whatsoever but, rather, presented as accepted truth with no ideological slant/bias/lens whatsoever. Doing this is POV in the extreme. I am for representing all viewpoints accurately and fairly.. even the ones I fundamentally disagree with! In order to do so we must first appreciate, and be willing to acknowledge, that there is a fundamental dichotomy here between MRA's and feminists. Once we've done so we can accurately provide a contextualized point and counter-point presentation. As long as we pretend that this is not the case and that "feminism is just about equality" we will just keep running endlessly on a hamster wheel and wasting each others time.
If I seem defensive, it's because I am. I know the history of this article, many of the editors who created the present probation problem and have been having all of my, very reasonable, edits reverted. The problem with this article, like so many of WP's gender related articles, is that there's a feminist task force that goes around practicing a very formalistic interpretation of WP policies and proceedures when dealing with editors they ideologically disagree with, while coddling editors who, no disrespect intended since I appreciate you are a new editor, like you, make poorly sourced edits as long as those edits confirm their pre-existing biases.
All that said, I look forward to working with you on improving this article.--Cybermud (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:V "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" that we should base it on. Like it or not, Flood, Kimmel et al. are longstanding, well respected scholars in the area of men's rights, men and masculinities, and have multiple peer-reviewed publications in the field. They are precisely the sort of sources that should be summarized for this article, even if men's rights activists dislike their viewpoints. Since academic sources attribute the views to "men's rights activists/advocates" so does this article. Since academic opinion appears to be critical of some men's rights claims, that needs to be reflected. I've done very broad literature searches, but other academic sources about men's rights, which present other perspectives, would be great; they need to be produced, however. --Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"equal rights"

regarding the claim that men's rights advocates equal rights i'm concerned because the two accessible sources don't seem to support it and are taken out of context and both scrutinise the claim. "Citizenship revisited: threats or opportunities of shifting boundaries" on p66-67 quotes a men's rights group as claiming to stand for equality, but then expounds on the fact that the group define the meaning as "equal, but different", which is contradictory. "From Panthers to Promise Keepers: rethinking the men's movement" claims that men want equal status, but not equal responsibility on p 167. and that "the very language of equal rights used by fathers rights might be used to justify traditional unequal forms of parenting and male privilege" on p166 also the third quote is of a book by Michael Messner, who's considered by some to be "pro-feminist". therefore i think the claim needs further clarification and factual verification if it's to be returned. Paintedxbird (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I tend to agree with Kgorman-ucb that "human rights don't seek anything by themselves" I think this concern is, for the moment, void. However for the future I would note that self-published sources and other personal statements are reliable enough to describe a person's or group's goals. Accusations otherwise, even if in print, are dubious. An assessment of actions and outcomes can reflect on the effectiveness of a group in meeting their goals. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
that sounds like a double standard. some are subjectively cherrypicked to be "reliable sources" and allowed to speak about others, whereas others are removed despite fulfilling the same criteria. i think the processes should be open and scrutinised, as currently i don't see any consistency towards the three pillars. Paintedxbird (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I may not be following you, Theinactivist, but actually I don't think you are correct. Yes, self-published sources can be used with care, but academic sources by scholars who have studied the movement, are much to be preferred. See WP:PSTS and WP:V and WP:IRS.--Slp1 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if any third-party reliable source states "the goal of XXX is to have superiority over women" but if one does, my point is that such a statement is mind-reading and is a claim of information that cannot be known to the source. I would say, therefore, it is unverifiable. If you would like to discuss this further, perhaps there is a more appropriate forum where various editors can weigh in on the concept of verifiability. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any source that says that "the goal of XXX is to have superiority over women" either, so perhaps the discussion is moot. And yes, if it was a throwaway line in a newspaper article then it would be very dubious for inclusion per WP:UNDUE. But if high quality sources, having made a scholarly study of the MR movement observed, for example, that some parts of the MRM are conservative and patriarchal in their approach while others are not, then I hope you will agree that that is not mindreading, but the conclusions of academic study. --Slp1 (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pure nonsense

I have been reverted twice for saying, in the lead of this article, that one of men's traditional roles is that of "protector" with some noise about a source failure. Are you kidding me? First of all, per WP:Lead article leads do not need citations if the content in the lead is sourced in the body. Secondly, do the editors reverting this change not live in human society? Would someone like me to source a claim that one of women's traditional roles was caretaker of children? I know it is probably fun to revert editors you disagree with just because, but it's not creating a better encyclopedia and just wastes people's time. There's no need to source a statement that says water is wet. If you need a Wikipedia policy for that try WP:Common--Cybermud (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute that one of men's traditional roles has been that of "protector". The sentence is about men's "primary" role in the family, however, not a laundry list of male gender roles. Thus the disagreement. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no laundry list and a penchant for hyperbole is not helpful here. Anyone with any background in the study of sex and gender roles know that men have exactly two traditional roles. Not one and not three. Provider and Protector.--Cybermud (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The main problem, Cybermud, as I see it, is that the sentence was cited, and you added material that was not in the reference given. It doesn't matter how obvious you think the material is; it means that the citation is no longer accurate, and leads, now and in the future, to significant verifiability problems. In a situation like this you have a choice. You could find a citation that makes the point of both provider/protector,(best) or you could add "and protector" after the citation (less good). --Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remember in future comments here that this article is still on probation, the terms of which can be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation if you'd like to review them. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Multiple Issues

Neutrality: Tagged since March 2011, and persists. Both content and sources have been questioned.

Globalize: Tagged in September 2011. At that time the article was written largely about movement within England. There are now numerous examples from other regions, but the tag may still apply if these xamples do not constitute an appropriate representation of those regions' worldviews.

Citation Check: Numerous references to Google Books in which, if the authors indeed used these for the source, would be missing much of the information. In one or more cases, authorship was misattributed to editors. Numerous books and news articles which may be misinterpreted to represent a certain POV. Attention should be paid both to verification and source reliability.

Laundry List: In the absence of a single coherent view on the subject, the article currently contains a synthesis of all movements and issues which identify by, or which have been identified by the term "men's rights." The relationship to the whole and the notability within are often not properly conveyed. The most recent example of this laundry list construction can be seen here, though it is neither the exclusive nor most prominent example.

Expert Attention: Because of the disputes and questionable verifiability, I have requested an expert in the field of sociology. (portion removed)

Please note that this section is for discussion about the inclusion or removal of maintenance tags. Thanks for your time. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about most of these.
I am the person who originally added the globalize tag and I tend to feel it still belongs - the article still doesn't do a great job at a global perspective, and also is pretty recentist (although that isn't really covered in the globalize tag, I feel like it's a related issue.)I do disagree with you about the expert tag a bit - partly just on practical grounds. At this point, even more so than for an ordinary wikipedia article, we should really take what we can get - any additional eyes on this article from people who are familiar with the literature in this area would be awesome, regardless of what side they are coming from. I'd be ecstatic if any editor who is really really familiar with the literature suddenly appeared here, regardless of their persuasion or background. (My non-solely practical objections I won't bother to get in to here, because they'd take a while to explain and derail the conversation without adding much.)
I would consider the citation problems and the whole laundry list aspect the most significant problems in the article currently. Kevin (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Kevin. After I wrote that last sentence I feared it might offend a prospective reviewer. In my mind it was more a rationale than a requirement, so I'll redact it. I still stand by the need to for neutrality, but the more important issue is to define the subject more tightly. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm just back to Wikipedia after a short break from this article. I'd agree with certain of the comments and disagree with others. As has been noted many times, including by Bkinsternet above, WP seeks scholarly analysis as the foundation of its articles. All sources come with their biases, and thus we don't seek neutral sources, but the highest quality, scholarly sources. WP:RS doesn't qualify sources according to any bias perceived by editors. For example, in Homeopathy, WP doesn't qualify academic opinion as coming from a "conventional medical" perspective or as "anti-homeopathic".
Similarly, all editors come with their biases, and as long as they are willing to park their opinions at the door and work collaboratively with people with opposing (or no) opinions to develop an article that accurately summarizes these highest quality sources, then everybody is welcome.
I agree that the current laundry list format is problematic, and note that it contrasts dramatically with articles about "men's rights" in other encyclopedias of various forms. This is a legacy from the past, but sticking to this in the short term may helpful as we seek to clean up the other problems.
I also agree that there have been significant problems with content verifiability with some of the sections I have checked. As part of that, checking the citations is a good idea too, but errors in authorship are likely good faith mistakes and quite easy to make; in fact I believe in trying to fix one misatttribution, Inactivist actually inserted another!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know which is stranger, that you know of a mistake which you are not correcting, or that you make a specific accusation by name without evidence. As I devoted a small section to explaining that the sources, as they appear to be cited, are incomplete, it would not be surprising if I did make a mistake. However I would hope that a variety of editors with whose identities I am not concerned would know the full source and context of the information they bring. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't explain clearly enough. You made this edit, [3] replacing the (incorrect- mea culpa I believe) author name Flood with Andrea O'Reilly, which was also incorrect. The actual author of that section is Kenneth Clatterbaugh. I made a note in the edit summary when I corrected it earlier today, but evidently should have clarified what was supposed to be a lighthearted comment about how easy it is for us all to make mistakes, especially with edited volumes.[4]--Slp1 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement/Archive_10&oldid=1092037663"