Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 1

message: I've just done a major rework of the article. It now has a structure (which I am happy to admit is debatable, e.g. I think a history section would be nice). I also included a lot of critical positions, which lacked in the article. I feel it now has a good balance of men's rights concerns and their critics issues. I've deleted some of the links in the external link section, just because there were too many. I tried to take out redundant ones that didn't look very authoritative in the first place and those that are already in the article. Still, the link section needs more cleanup and could use some more good critical links. I hope you like my edit. bastel 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: Not sure about this, but it seems this page has a subtle POV to it.  
e.g. "This can lead to the mistaken perception that such measures are anti-women."
I'm sure there are feminist groups out there who will argue that most of the claims 
made about discrimination again men are either false, blown out of all proportion, or fair. (note I'm not taking a stance on this issue).  In saying that such perceptions are mistaken, wikipedia is taking sides in this dispute.  Morwen - Talk 12:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many men's groups just represent abusive bullies and violent dangerous men. Many violent men expect all other men to support abusive men. Numerous self priclaimed "men's groups" just represent a pro violence agenda supporting domestic abuse, bullying, and glamorization of abusive men."  Seems to be cited from some random uk site - www.lonympics.co.uk/new/ZMensgroups.htm. The ranting author uses horrible english, even for a brit: "And no this is not a joke if you thjink this is a joke you are rerally dangerous, and are toaly in need to being thorwn in jail for a life. Yet i know for a fact some shithead will act like i have sopmehting toally teffrriing or illogicla just because i ghave psone out again abuse. The next minute thos scum, will be beating their opwn wife face in." I hardly think this qualifies as a valid encyclopedic contribution. Any qualified professionals out there want to confirm my suspicions?  --69.158.50.199 10:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I'm a man and I find this laughable to say the least. Discrimination against men is extremely rare (or perhaps non-existent), compared to discrimination against women. Women's rights is a valid term, this is not. There is not one society that discriminates against men. There are many that discriminate against women. Feel free to debate me, but I will win the argument, because you will not be able to back up your claims. Revolución 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I or others agree with you or not is irrelevant; talk pages are used to discuss issues with the article. Some would perceive your statement above to be incorrect and these people have created a seperate movement -- this is factual. Whether their claims are legitimate or not is for the article to discuss in an NPOV manner -- talk pages are not soapboxes. Thanks 
I am not sure but atleast in India following ways men are discuriminated against 
 1. women pay less taxes at the same salary levels
 2. Women can adopt children men cannot
 3. Women can legally force a man to marry her under the threat of Rape laws.
 4. Women have special Buses and trains , men do not 
 5. Women get free legal aid without economic criteria , Men do not 
 6. Women's Adultery is not crim Men's Adultery is 
 & these are just some of the ways in which men are dicsriminated againt Dysprosia 09:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men's rights? 

message: This is a better article, and Fathers' rights are intrinsic to men's rights. During merge a number of the extended discussipons in the Father's rights article should be moved, for example, the extended discussion on UK law to Fathers' rights movement in the UK where it is appropriate. -- Paul foord 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree these sections should not be merged. --Davidrusher 02:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal - from [[Fathers' rights]] 

message: I just reverted a few deletions of criticisms and references made by two Ohio IP addresses (which I had mistakenly read as a single IP at the time of revert). My rationale is that this set of edits effectively removed criticisms of the movement and references to alternative views of the movement, which seem to merit discussion. The usual custom on this article has been increase the range of views rather than cut them, which seems more in accordance with an NPOV survey of the subject. - Rorybowman 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 2006-01-23 Discussion 

message: There was a part of this article, that out of the blue said "The man is better than the woman. Always!" just like that. I deleted that section. It had no place at then end of the topic and was clearly put there by some feemenist that wanted to make fun the the topic. Men's studies are a valid topic, men's rights are too.  16:51, 27 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.35.250 (talk • contribs) 
:Or perhaps somebody who actually thinks that men are better than women?  14:29, 2 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.56.20 (talk • contribs)  
::Better in what? I like the "Sledgehammer-Teacup" dichotomy. Men ARE better than women in certain fields, just as women ARE better than men in certain fields(on average, of course...). Robinson0120 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better than 

message: What about the group "No Ma'am" from the American television show Married With Children?  VarunRajendran  04:39, 30 April 2006 
:Please don't make light of a serious subject in attempting to ignore or dismiss its validity by ridiculing or deriding it. Anyway, that so-called men's group on that particular sitcom is not at all the same as the groups/movement being discussed in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.100.126 (talk • contribs).
::What? Caricatures of pro-male movements in popular media should definitely be included in an article on the topic. 41.245.31.60 08:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No, Ma'am

message: This article has had a large number of edits by one person in the past 3 days.  Essentially, the effect has been to push an advertisement in the middle of the page, and to do some really odd formatting.  I'm reverting those changes, back to the version by Yakuman on 3 September 2006. -- ArglebargleIV 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of reversion coming up

message: This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on wikipedia!!! Someone should look into this!!! Mjal 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no restriction that you have to subscribe to a certain point of view just to edit an article -- that would be ridiculous. Getting editors with different points of views helps to attain NPOV, not detract from it. Dysprosia 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be some restrictions as to who can edit what, or some way to authenticate the POV of the editor.  Allowing feminists (who do not have an NPOV) to edit the core of the men's rights section would be tantamount to allowing the KKK to edit the core of wiki holocaust section.  We should not permit historical revisionists to redefine history or reality: however, their POV should be permitted in the critics section.  --Davidrusher 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restricting which editors are allowed to edit a given article, based on "authenticating the POV of the editor" (whatever that means) or some other criteria, is a not an existing policy.  Please do not make proposals for new policies on article talk pages: see Wikipedia:How to create policy, and post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).  -- John Broughton   ☎☎ 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this artical being overhauled by a feminist. 

message: All, I am a wiki newbie, so please forgive me if my skills are not great.  I am an internet automation person for a major ISP, but this is all new to me.
I added myself as a co-founder of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and this was redacted as a conflict of interest.  Since my relationship with ACFC as a co-founder and national secretary for the first five years of its existence is a historical fact, I do not see how this is somehow a conflict of interest. During this time period, I organized the three largest protests in the history of the men's movement.  I do not see anything in the spam or conflict of interest definitions that would lead to this conclusion.
I have uploaded a photo taken at the ACFC founding held at the National Press Club.  I am on the far left:
http://www.dadsnow.org//images/acfc-founding-pressclub.jpg
My photo is in all my articles.  Compare my photo there to the press club photo and you will see I am, in fact, a co-founder of ACFC.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security/
Therefore, I request that the redaction from the history section be reversed.  I also request my blog link as a major writer be restored.  You can ask anybody in the movement who is moving mountains, and most all will mention my work.
Please note: the men's movement is not large, like that of feminism.  There are not many movers and shakers.  And, unlike feminism, there is not a huge cadre of college-level activists who would nominate others on wikipedia.   
--Davidrusher 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Usher the reason links to your blog were original delted are probably explained here Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, the policy goes: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."  Perhaps an RfC would be appropriate in regard to this?--Cailil 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing policy / conflict of interest / clarification requested [[Men's rights]] 

message: >The majority of the feminist movement holds that heterosexual marriage is unimportant and easily substituted by divorce, welfare, child support, and other artificial supports.
This statement is extremely subjective opinion -not far from slander- unprovable, and is entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Commonly known as "putting words in other people's mouth's", it is watering down the credibility of the whole page on which it appears.  Jvol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and as pointed out by others above this article is of poor encyclopedic quality.  There is too much POV and opinion here.  If this article does not conform to Wikipedia standards its accuracy will have to be disputed.--Cailil 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  statement characterizing feminism 

message: === Initial comment ===
As it stands the section on same sex marriage looks like original research.  I'm concerned that it reads like an essay and its content is disputable.  Are there any sources for this information?  I've given this section some time and more thought  on grounds of WP:POVPUSH, WP:SYNT, WP:V, and WP:NONSENSE.  It's not accurate in any way shape or form it presents an Editor's POV not 1 verifiable source and reads like a blog/essay.  I've deleted the following for WP:NONSENSE, WP:NPOV and WP:V: "Feminist strategists realized it would place women in the position to control all aspects of reproduction, life, politics, and marriage." - if you want this reintroduced without reliable, independent refernece please RfC this article as I consider this to be a piece of particularly irresponsible writing for wikipedia--Cailil 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW in your above comment you use Feminism#Feminism_in_many_forms: this IS an example of bad writing (the final 3 paragraphs are WP:SYNT and POV) - thank you for pointing it out to me--Cailil 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr Usher I did not delete the same sex marriage section - please check the history.  I will refer you to the no personal attacks policies.  I am going to take your advice and RfC this article and talk page.  I see nothing incredible about what I have said and nothing unresonable.  I am not in the position of having to prove anything I have not added to the article - I am questioning uncited material and I stand over my decision to do so.  I will not be engaging with you or this page until outside editors have looked at it and given their judgements by which I state once more I will abide.--Cailil 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am responding to the RfC.  The content as currently written has no sources and is contested.  Those grounds alone are enough to have it removed.  If you add sources to the disputed content, I'll reconsider my opinion on it.-75.179.159.240 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I was going to try to stay neutral on this, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do that.  When what I consider to be a legitimate cause (in this case, the social disparities faced by men) have found themselves unfortunately represented by idiot hate-mongers such as this, I have to speak up.
This source states, "Same sex marriage is a feminist devise of the late 1970s intentionally designed to end structural economic problems faced by single-mothers and to finally make men irrelevant..Same sex marriage is unconstitutional where women's choice would create two distinct classes of 'marriage', based on sex, one chattel to the other."  This is effectively arguing that heterosexual marriage depends on preventing women from having economic alternatives.  Wow.  Personally, I prefer to promote marriage based on love, mutual respect, and willful commitment.  Having argued that heterosexual marriage is maintained through economic servitude, the article goes on to say that same sex marriage should not be permitted - basically arguing that marriage is not only grounded on economic servitude, but that the only question up for debate is who will be in servitude to whom.  If I didn't know any better, I'd say this article was a mockery and attack against the Men's Rights movement itself characterizing men as purely shallow and Machiavellian.  In that such a hate-filled rag claims to defend issues that I support (again, speaking of addressing social disparities men experience), I find it deeply offensive.  This does not represent me.  I can't remain neutral and dispassionate about this kind of excrement.  As such, I think I'm ethically obligated to retract my comments on this RfC.-75.179.159.240 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same sex marriage - Dubious tags

message: As it stands the section on same sex marriage looks like original research.  I'm concerned that it reads like an essay and its content is disputable.  Are there any sources for this information?  I've given this section some time and more thought  on grounds of WP:POVPUSH, WP:SYNT, WP:V, and WP:NONSENSE.  It's not accurate in any way shape or form it presents an Editor's POV not 1 verifiable source and reads like a blog/essay.  I've deleted the following for WP:NONSENSE, WP:NPOV and WP:V: "Feminist strategists realized it would place women in the position to control all aspects of reproduction, life, politics, and marriage." - if you want this reintroduced without reliable, independent refernece please RfC this article as I consider this to be a piece of particularly irresponsible writing for wikipedia--Cailil 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comment 

message: Mr Usher the men's movement is wider than the USA and also wider than your POV - I will remind you that it is your opinion that the men's movement is (philosophically) opposed to the women's movement - your statement that pro-feminists cannot be legitimate participants in the men's movement is not necessarily fact.  I'm not entering a debate on that or any of the topics you raised for this reason: unless information can be cited and/or referenced from multiple reliable and notable published sources it is not encyclopedic I refer you to WP:RS.  I cannot cite the above sources with good Wiki Concience because I believe they contravene  Wikipedia Guidelines on Using online sources; as they are partisan they are not secondary sources - just primary ones.  WP:V is about notable, objective, peer-reviewed sources.
I am sympathetic to your position because, as you correctly pointed out, there are not many MRM writers - however, I would point out to you that you're restricting your selection  to North America which is bad for the article.  I would propose a compromise; that a section summarizing MRM in America be created for the views shared by yourself, Glenn Sacks & Steve Baskerville.  However, I completely dispute the comments on Same Sex Marriage therefore I recommend you RfC this article for outside encyclopedic opinion on that material's re-inclusion (I would abide by an RfC's consensus opinion, which ever way it went).  I apologize if you found my dubious tags aggressive but unless you reference a statement on wikipedia someone will eventually question it--Cailil 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW in your above comment you use Feminism#Feminism_in_many_forms: this IS an example of bad writing (the final 3 paragraphs are WP:SYNT and POV) - thank you for pointing it out to me--Cailil 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply (two parts) 

message: Hi David,
You might want to look at this piece of Wikipedia policy "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." It is up to you to provide the kind of reliable sources that are accepted on WP if you want the paragraphs included. John, below and on your talk page, makes other good points that it would be good to abide by when you edit on Wikipedia.  You don't own this article, for example, and rude remarks and personal attacks are never acceptable, since we are always to assume good faith with each other.  I have found WP a fascinating forum for learning about how to resolve conflicts and disagreements peaceably.  I hope that you will be able to join in the community effort to build a encyclopedia in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Slp1 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Usher I did not delete the same sex marriage section - please check the history.  I will refer you to the no personal attacks policies.  I am going to take your advice and RfC this article and talk page.  I see nothing incredible about what I have said and nothing unresonable.  I am not in the position of having to prove anything I have not added to the article - I am questioning uncited material and I stand over my decision to do so.  I will not be engaging with you or this page until outside editors have looked at it and given their judgements by which I state once more I will abide.--Cailil 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am responding to the RfC.  The content as currently written has no sources and is contested.  Those grounds alone are enough to have it removed.  If you add sources to the disputed content, I'll reconsider my opinion on it.-75.179.159.240 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I was going to try to stay neutral on this, but I don't think I'm going to be able to do that.  When what I consider to be a legitimate cause (in this case, the social disparities faced by men) have found themselves unfortunately represented by idiot hate-mongers such as this, I have to speak up.
This source states, "Same sex marriage is a feminist devise of the late 1970s intentionally designed to end structural economic problems faced by single-mothers and to finally make men irrelevant..Same sex marriage is unconstitutional where women's choice would create two distinct classes of 'marriage', based on sex, one chattel to the other."  This is effectively arguing that heterosexual marriage depends on preventing women from having economic alternatives.  Wow.  Personally, I prefer to promote marriage based on love, mutual respect, and willful commitment.  Having argued that heterosexual marriage is maintained through economic servitude, the article goes on to say that same sex marriage should not be permitted - basically arguing that marriage is not only grounded on economic servitude, but that the only question up for debate is who will be in servitude to whom.  If I didn't know any better, I'd say this article was a mockery and attack against the Men's Rights movement itself characterizing men as purely shallow and Machiavellian.  In that such a hate-filled rag claims to defend issues that I support (again, speaking of addressing social disparities men experience), I find it deeply offensive.  This does not represent me.  I can't remain neutral and dispassionate about this kind of excrement.  As such, I think I'm ethically obligated to retract my comments on this RfC.-75.179.159.240 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replies 

message: I have reviewed the deleted section (deleted by this edit).  Unless the section is completely rewritten to include sources, it should stay removed. As if was, it read like a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.
By "include sources", I don't mean listing them on this talk page, or having them in the external links or references section -- I mean using WP:FOOT to provide a cite to support each and every sentence.  Yes, that could be a lot of work.  This is a controversial subject; if we can't add valid, supported statements to the article, it's better to leave information out all together.
And by "include sources", I means sources that meet WP:RS criteria.  Such criteria is significantly stronger than that for external links (see WP:EL). A link to a prominent men's support group website may well be acceptable in the EL section but still is totally unacceptable to support a sentence in the article, because the website is self-published information.
As an example, here is my evaluation of the five sources sited in the section above:
*http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm - self-published
*http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher022404.htm - blog
*http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david36.htm - self-published
*http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110705.htm - opinion piece
*http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=gay-marriage - blog
I also want to be perfectly clear that an "expert" is a person who has published repeatedly in academic, peer-reviewed publications.  A sourced statement by an expert can generally be added to an article without qualification if the statement is in the expert's field of authority, regardless of the source.  On the other hand, a "prominent critic" or "prominent commentator" or "activist", on the other hand, is certainly worth quoting on a particular line of argument ("X says that the trend in parent custody cases is Y"), but cannot legitimately be quoted as the source of a fact ("The trend in parent custody cases is Y").  So the above five sources could be used in a "Critics say" sentence, but not to establish neutral facts.  (And to anticipate the ridiculous: a section consisting solely of "activists say" and "critics say" and "one prominent commentator says" sentences is NOT acceptable; Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air individual views, even if those views are well-sourced.)  If there is nothing in a national newspaper or national magazine or an academic publication about the relationship of same-sex marriage and men's rights, then the section stays out of the article.
If you want to see what a fully-source-supported article looks like, please see Jimmy Wales or Citizendium.  -- John Broughton   ☎☎ 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on same-sex marriage has been reintroduced, including a few referenced statements.  However, this version continues to have many of the same flaws as its predecessor in that statements of "fact" are made without citation or sourcing. It appears to be Original Research.  The referenced statements from feminists seem to fall into the area of  using a synthesis of published material in order to advance a position which is also not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I am not going to delete the section at present, to give the editor who introduced it a chance to find Wikipedia-acceptable reliable sources as discussed by John above.  But this needs to happen very quickly, as I believe editors are encouraged to be quick with the delete key when it comes to removing material that does not follow WP policy.  It should also be noted that there is a desperate dearth of citations for the whole of this article, not just this section. Slp1 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same Sex Marriage - either source the section or it stays out 

message: I would like to point out one further problem with this page - its information and view point is not global.  It does not mention any of the Men's rights issues or facts from Europe (particularly the Uk & Ireland).  Notably the singer Sir Bob Geldof is a very prominent men's activist on this side of the Atlantic, although he does not conform exactly to the men's rights paradigm set-out, here he is for the gender reform of divorce laws (to make parenting gender neutral).  He would not be part of Davidrusher's "legitimate marriage" type of men's rights activist but he warrants inclusion as do men's rights activists from every other political and geographical position.  The page also needs to present verifiable information of Men's rights in Asia and Africa.  Until such time as this happens I'm tagging the whole article with--Cailil 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for needing to be Globalized 

message: So the three quotes in the Same Sex Marriage section show that those women, and one could argue feminists as a whole, are against marriage.  Does that equate to being for same sex marriage?  Or does it equate to using the SSM debate to destroy marriage?  Seems like an opinion to me - do we have any references to support either of those? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing  'feminists as a whole' is silly unless you can prove that. There are extremist man-hating feminists, just as there are extremist women-hating men's rights activists. Concentrate on the sane majority instead. They very often work for the same things, but are stirred up by the extremists grinding their sexist axes. If you present the extremists as majority, you are helping them Bards 13:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three quotes in "Same Sex Marriage" section 

message: Mr Usher I am returning to this article a little time and some reflection.  First I apologize if you feel I have singled you out - it was not my intention to do so, I do not dispute your position in the American Men's Movement or the good faith in which you posted the disputed material.  I'm sorry you feel that I am censoring you but I have in fact only deleted one line, an act that I stand over.  It is not my wish or that of any of the other editors here, to make you feel unwelcome or under fire.  John Broughton has expressed clearly why editors have questioned the notability of the disputed posts - I stand by his remarks and my earlier position.  None of us have any personal motivations for questioning the post(s) in question.  
Nobody is excluded from editing any Wikipedia article as long as their posts are verifiable and reliable but most of all consensus.  Your editing work would be valuable in feminist articles as long as it WP:V and WP:RS.  I must reiterate the point that I have not nor will I delete any long sections of this article without consensus approval - you have my word on that.  
For the record I am not the anonymous user IP 129.67.43.240 (I live, work and post from Ireland, this address is in Oxford University, England).
BTW I could refer to Michael Kimmel, Ph.D. from NOMAS (The National Organization For Men Against Sexism) as a pro-feminist man in the Men's Rights movement - he is also a leading Men's studies scholar.--Cailil 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on returning 

message: It appears that Davidrusher has chosen to issue a call for meatpuppets to come and edit this article. I've reverted several such edits and will continue to do so without prejudice to their content. "Recruiting" people from outside the community to come and edit an article to support a specific POV is a clear policy violation and will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: All of that is great, Mr. Rusher!  What would help other editors to evaluate your additions to the article is if you would use the sources you mentioned (or others) when you add to the article.  For instance, instead of adding something like 
You should add your text and include a reference - in this case, preferrably a reference to feminists who say just that.  Then other editors can evaluate the source and what you've written and either leave it as is or can challenge the specific addition and cite.
As it is, you've added (sometimes lengthy) portions of text with no or very few citations, so all we other editors have to go on is your word.  While I'm sure your word is good, WP:V requires something to back it up.
Secondly, adding lengthy responses here on the talk page can be helpful, but a much better use of your time would be to add those reference to the acual text in he article unless further explanation is needed or a question arises on the talk page.
Thanks again for your contributions -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the section as it reads in the history on the grounds that it is uncited.  I second SatyrTN's thoughts.  --DavidShankBone 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to lengthy post above 

message: Orman, 1998 is an incomplete reference to the source. 
The quote appears to be taken from this webpage:
http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml
The website references another website as the source of Orman, 1998 (http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/feminism/Domestic_Violence/controversy.html). 
This website does not exist.
Afp2258 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non verifyable source 

message: This statement ( “Indeed, not only have the data and conclusions offered by both sides been attacked, but so have the individual scholars and authors.”) does not support the characterization (he was aware of how research data and conclusions have been mis-represented by both sides of the debate); rather, it suggests they have been attacked by both sides - exactly what the quote says  - not "misrepresented" and therefore comes across as a misrepresentation/straw man argument. I went to the link and, on the contrary, Richard Gelless says that, “there are as many male victims of violence as female” is a “significant distortion of [his] research data” which I added to the paragraph for accuracy. Please, for consistency, include a statement by Mr. Gelles that holds feminists/whomever “misuse” the conclusions, or change the characterization. This article is sloppy and uncited enough.NeoApsara 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi NeoApsara.  You're absolutely right about that line.  There is a synopsis of Gelles remarks on the Minnesotta Center for Violence and abuse website.  The article on this webpage is written by Gelles - it is critique of "factoids" about domestic violence from both sides.  The article was originally published in University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program in 1995.  The full quote states that "the [political] right of center" who clim: Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men [...] conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.  I'm editing the article, as you suggested, to reflect this position.--Cailil 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and removed this paragraph.--Adzze 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism: Violence - distortions

message: The following has been commented out and moved here so that it can be cleaned up. 	 
Leading men's rights activists largely oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions.  Male activists in the LGBT social movements strongly support same-sex marriage.  Gay activists are largely not recognized as members of the men's movement for this reason, and no major organizations representing the Men's movement are actively involved in support of gay rights or same-sex marriage.
"Leading men's rights activists" is weasel words. Which leading men's rights activists?  Source them.  "largely oppose" absolutely needs a source (and remember, the source shouldn't be to one or two leading men's rights activists, it needs to be a reliable source which specifically states that leading men's rights activists largely oppose..  "Gay activists are largely not recognized as members of the men's movement for this reason"  Not recognized by whom specifically?  Needs a source.  "no major organizations representing the Men's movement are actively involved in support of gay rights or same-sex marriage."  needs a source -75.179.159.240 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That piece has already been debated - the consensus was that it should be removed if it can't be sourced.  Its been here almost a month without any sources and longer since I tagged it as dubious so I'm removing that content.  If any wants to discuss its reinclusion please read the above (very lengthly) debate on the content's inclusion.--Cailil 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Same sex marriage

message: I've added a fact tag to Media portrayal.  I know Glen Sacks campaigns about this but can anyone supply a more WP:RS source than his website?--Cailil 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tag in Media portrayal section 

message: NeoApsara, you have put health issues back in (with a misleading edit summary).  This edit is POV and cites a disreputable source.  Beyond that, it does not fit in with the heading "health issues".  Would you kindly explain why you feel it should remain and why you don't think it's POV?  207.112.77.252 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Issues - Revert 

message: This article is being sabotaged by anti-male crusaders.  The criticisms are peppered, rather than in the appropriate areas:  
"Critics also accuse men's right advocates of ignoring, trivializing, and/or defending male violence. In response, some men's rights advocates say they "don't disagree that some men rape"[citation needed],".  
First, no men's rights organization ignores, trivializes, or defends male violence.  This is clear POV.  Men's rights organization complain that too little attention is paid when a man is the victim.  Let's lose the POV semantics and stay on topic.
Second, on citing feminist sources:  masculists are not quoted or referenced in the feminist articles on Wikipedia.  I suggest we do the same here.
This article requires major clean-up.  Let's put everything in the right place and fix the language.  Let's lose the man-bashing/men's rights bashing and the anti-male innuendo.  I won't proceed further until I have a bit of comment from the community.  Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diddlyop (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage! 

message: SatyrTN:  There is no legitimate, encylopedic basis for referring to Mythology and Men's Liberation.  89.100.237.34 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither of the links refers to Mythology, so I'm not sure where that comes from.  And "Men's liberation" is indeed an "ancillary stream of the men's movement".  I'd be willing to move them down to the "See Also" section, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below for my addressing of Mythology - it is not related to "male rights" as such, thus is irrelevant.  Regarding "men's liberation" it is "indeed an 'ancillary stream of the men's movement'", is it now?  There is little bibiographical evidence of "men's liberation" books - there are pro-feminist books written by men, there is a difference.  Furthermore, in the current men's movement there is absolutely no recognition of "men's liberation" and its shaming of "patriarchy" and "masculinity" as would appear to be the case on the Men's Liberation Wiki page. 89.100.237.34 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to [[Men's liberation]] and [[Mythopoetic]] 

message: I've reverted edits by Ip 84.66.35.132   as POvpushing.  The info they added was not relibaly sourced - coming from a non peer reviewed website.  Neither was the content of the piece in any way neutral.  I've identified this as vandalism.  apologies to the edior if they made a good faith addition and/or they are unfamiliar with WP's policies--Cailil  talk 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  education revert