Talk:Michael Flood

message: :::MishMich wrote "To suggest that this one part is more significant than the others is :WP:OR". Nobody has said that this part is "more significant", at least not in any of the non-archived posts I can see above, so we don't need to entertain your "more" conjecture further. The only emphasis I made in recent comments was on his own contention that a focus on men's and father's rights is one of five main areas of his work. He has focussed significant attention on this topic in his written corpus. As it was he who made this comment about it being one of five areas I see no reason to debate his word. You need to be careful in adding the word "more" to the word "significant" - ie. his focus on the negative aspects of men's and father's right's collectives need not be "more" significant than other areas of his work in order to remain "significant" in it's detail and volume. My contention in pointing to the considerable amount of work he has devoted to the negative aspects men's and father's rights collectives is firstly to clarify that such a focus (among other foci) exists; it is one which he has admitted. I don't know that this area of his research is subject (in your words) 'to a campaign against him', so I have no knowledge/sources to offer on that point. In fact I would suggest that if it is the case that his work is tied to a compaign against him, that this focus in his work may be best NOT elaborated in the main entry as it may invite disruptive edits, however I'll leave that tangent to others with a greater knowledge and interest in the subject. 124.185.30.220 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, I obviously failed to express what I meant. If it is simply that it is significant, and not 'more' significant, as one of five areas, then it should be dealt with no more extensively than the others, otherwise, that is :WP:UNDUE. It should not be ignored, and it should not be focused on in a way that might make it appear more significant. - MishMich - Talk - 09:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MishMich wrote "it should be dealt with no more extensively than the others, otherwise, that is :WP:UNDUE". Nobody has said that this part of his work should be dealt with "more extensively" than other areas, at least not in any of the non-archived posts I can see above, so we don't need to entertain your newest "more" conjecture further. Various editors above were correctly insisting that, as well as the need to avoid misleading suggestions of this area of his work being more significant than other areas, it is also equally misleading to ignore/downplay the significant attention Flood has devoted to this topic which he qualifies as one of five major areas of his research. So most editors appear to agree on a balanced weight for the five stated areas, and for the need to not ignore/downplay any unpopular aspects of his work where weight is due. However in affirming the existence of this one-of-five major areas of his research as indisputably :WP:DUE I have no recommendations for further inclusion or exclusion in the entry at this point. It is enough that we remind editors of his significant work on the subject of -men's rights and father's rights.  60.231.60.90 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you for taking notice of this discussion.  The key issue here is that we cannot make a determination as to which particular areas of your work are prominent (or not).  We depend on reliable sources to make those determinations for us, if they are to be made.  So, for example, if a notable publication or journal published a summary of your work along the lines of "Michael Flood has concentrated his research in areas relating to..." then we could include those comments, in one form or another, in the article here.  Without those sources, we have to stick to the facts, because to do our own analysis of your work would be original research, which is precluded here by policy.  I hope this helps clarify, although looking over the archives, I imagine you may recall this from past instances in which other folks have advocated for various content to be added to your biography here on Wikipedia.  jæs (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Flood wrote: "[[men's rights]] and [[fathers' rights]] are one of about five major areas of research in which I’ve engaged"

message: Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The first sentence of the article identifies Flood as "an Australian pro-feminist sociologist". Flood may identify himself as pro-feminist, but is that really central to his notability? I'm not sure that labeling academics first of all by their political leanings is helpful to the encyclopedia. Flood's work in pro-feminism is mentioned twice further down in the lead section – for the sake of due weight, I would suggest that that's probably enough. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labels 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923000751/http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/05/original-net-nanny-advocate-does-back-flip to http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/05/original-net-nanny-advocate-does-back-flip
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)