Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Five Pillars?

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

---

This page is slowly evolving into one of the most disgraceful violations of Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources and Original Research on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in crisis and the history of this page displays all the reasons why. Virtually none of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia are evident in its content. It's all a real shame, a betrayal of the Wikipedia concept and is unbecoming of an encyclopedia. CSDarrow (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I'm jumping in here in my capacity as administrator to warn you that these kinds of comments, as well as similar comments at Talk:Sexism, are not constructive and are subject to sanctions per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. With your track record, if you persist in this fashion, you risk a very long block or a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. Prove to me that the page is slowly evolving away from Wikipedia's core policies. I will engage with your conclusion after you've proved its foundation. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The inability for rational discussion to exist on these pages is the very reason we are where we at. You know and I know that and discussion between us would be entirely fruitless. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I think I've read similar accusations on every page about an activist movement that Wikipedia has... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You have? Then it's not just the Men's Rights page, things are worse than I thought. CSDarrow (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, alternately, activists are generally unwilling to accept that their own positions are not mainstream. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Definition of rape

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia (or I should say, new to editing it) but I have a mild curiosity in this page and MRM in general. One thing that is missing from this page is the arguments over the definition of rape by legal sources, such as the CDC and the FBI and the united kingdom's legal code outright which exclude male victims of rape and exclude female perpitrators of rape. Here are a couple of sources.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1

The source for the CDC definition is from NISVS 2010 Report. I don't know how to cite this source, but it states generally

"“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”"

I can't find a source on UK law although I've seen it before.

I don't know how to edit and properly write this up, so I'm wondering if someone else could help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.152.3 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That content is more appropriate for the Rape article. KillerChihuahua 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! The definition of rape is a men's rights issue. You've listed all of these other mens rights issues in this article. Why shouldn't this be an issue that is listed?

what you're suggesting is similar to saying a page on feminism shouldn't mention wage disparity because it belongs in pages about unionization. The two sources are not mutually exclusive.

I agree the issue of the CDC definition of Rape a Men's Rights issue and belongs on this page. Admin. do not control the content of this page they can only express an opinion. Content is contributed by the Editors. CSDarrow (talk)

Enforcing policy, however, is the remit of admins, and you cannot violate WP:SYNTHwith impunity. If the source(s) do not specifically mention MRM, then you will have difficulty in establishing justifiable reason for inclusion here. However, placing information about rape in the rape article, which is linked from this article, would be permissible - providing of course you obtain consensus for such inclusion on the rape article. KillerChihuahua 15:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of good articles on this topic appear on A Voice for Men, with copious references. Unfortunately AVfM is currently blacklisted on Wikipedia, however, avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ is a good example, and it has useful references and arguments. It also appeared on Genderratic.com. Dean Esmay (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Prominent MRA groups/people

Recently there have been two rather high-profile articles on the MRM, one appearing in the Daily Beast, and the other on 20/20 that both discuss Paul Elam, AV4M and their relationship with the MRM. The Dailybeast goes a bit further and discusses John Hembling, Roosh/PUAs, and other movements associated with the MRM. Do people feel that this would merit its own section, or at least appended under the "Movement" section? That details the history of the movement fairly well, but doesn't really describe the groups that have popped up in the last 10-15 years or so. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the things this article is missing is something about how the movement operates; these articles emphasize the importance of the internet and there is a long chapter about it (Virtual backlash: Representations of men’s ‘rights’ and feminist ‘wrongs’ in cyberspace) in this book. I'm not so keen on the Daily Beast as a reliable source (I spotted some spelling mistakes which suggests that the editorial oversight isn't that great even though looking through the archives it has been accepted at RSN postings), but the ABC 20/20 article seems fine for sure. I'd suggest putting more of an emphasis on the process than identifying specific websites, people etc, without a few more and better sources. Part of my reasoning is that these things are so imutable: a few year's ago the Men's News Daily website was all the rage, and we had the people from there trying to promote themselves here; now that's died pretty much completely and it is AV4M etc; who knows how long these ones will last....--Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Points taken - I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a terrible thing to have a "a movement where moderates are marginalized" as the Daily Beast subheding suggests that MRM does to itself, and I agree there is a huge amount of that, for example, if I criticize the anti-feminism (that is if I oppose anti-feminism or criticize the line that "feminism is all bad") in MRM/MRAs, my head gets bitten off by many MRAs. I saw it happen to a youtuber in the UK too, genderempathy I think his name was, funny he too sees that word empathy as critical as I do.

It's no less sad if "moderates [of MRM] are marginalized" on wikipedia, and marginalized, perhaps, by feminists or possibly by anti-MRM in this case, to the point where even being more accurate about the history is shot down when I merely suggested that the "Relation to Feminism" is badly underserving our readers if we exclude from that section the simple fact that some members like Warren Farrell were leaders in NOW (certainly part of the feminist movement) so informing our readers necessitates inclusion of the fact that some present MRM members are not only former feminists but former feminist group leaders. Or when it gets shot down to point out the simple fact that some not at all obscure compoentns of the heterogeneous MRM like anti-MGM, are certainly not backlashes against femimism. I wrote t I agree, yes, agree that a lot of MRM is a backlash and agree with keeping that word in the article, but that accuracy (not talking about hard to define fairness but accuracy) to our readers suggests that we add a mild modifier that "many parts" or "much of" the MRM is a backlash, but some parts like anti-MGM (anti male genital mutilation) did not arise, or emerge, or come out as a backlash against feminism. Even the standard term MGM (in circles of those who see it as a rights issue for male infants) was attacked. For my not being anti-feminist and the fact that I am even strongly pro WR/WL (women's rights, women's liberation) but also pro MR/ML, some MRAs who think they own the word will say, I am guessing, that I don't get to call myself part of MRM... Crazy. But yes, moderates in MRM are being shot down. Including by a huge number of cases I've seen online, by MRAs/MRMs. But they are not the only ones shooting down the moderates in MRM...I would respectfully request that we try to not contribute to this unfortunate phenomenon on the Talk page. Maleliberation (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the things I believe we need to do is start doing writeups on the most important and prominent Men's Rights Movement web pages. A Voice for Men now has a page (which by the way, needs people to look at it who are unaffiliated with AVfM), The Spearhead, the Anti-Misandry Forum, Angry Harry, ManWomanMyth, Men's Rights Edmonton, and so on. I'm willing to pitch in on that, although I don't know all the history of a lot of these. Nevertheless articles on these individuals and groups/sites, with links to same, would I think be in order. I have a COI with AVfM (since I'm Managing Editor there) but I'd be willing to pitch in and help do writeups on other sites and persons I'm not affiliated with. Would anyone like to coordinate something on that with me?Dean Esmay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between those sites and AVFM is that AVFM has recently received notable mainstream press coverage, whereas I don't believe any of those sites really have. Detailing the history of these types of orgs and their relation to the MRM is important but I couldn't really find much RS beyond what I've linked above. Maybe you have other RS in mind? PearlSt82 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV language needed

There are several points that need to be addressed to provide a neutral point of view for this topic. The first is that language that pits Men's Rights activists against equality for women are inflammatory and shouldn't be used. While some may argue that feminism and the social advocacy that feminists support are ubiquitous to women's rights, MRA's do not. This is a difference of opinion and it should be repsected as such.

Therefore, certain changes need to be made. Language such as "Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women" Needs to be changed because Men's rights advocates are not against protecting abused women. Men's rights advocates are against the exclusion of men. Being against certain laws does not mean you are against protecting abused women in the same way that being against affirmative action doesn't mean you are racist.

I can find other examples but this is one sentence that struck me. Furthermore I would question the constant spattering of "misogynist" claims throughout the language of this article, particularly in the introduction. If you're going to talk about the controversy there should be a separate conversation on this controversy so that neutrality can be maintained when talking about the facts of MRA positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.152.3 (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to propose new wording, please do, but remember that we need to use reliable sources. Whether or not men's rights groups are misogynist or not, if reliable sources say they are then that is what we put in the article. Quietmarc (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely sources that can be relied upon to call men's rights groups misogynist, just as there are sources that can be relied upon to call feminist groups misogynist and/or 'misandrist'. Regardless of the validity/authority of those sources, it would not be appropriately neutral to put such comments in the introductory paragraphs of their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.183.68 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a concrete change with reliable sources and editors can discuss if it is appropriate or not. The archives are full of discussions about giving sources and viewpoints appropriate weight in the article. Often a compromise can be reached that complies with the wiki's various guidelines, but we would need a concrete suggestion to start with. Quietmarc (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. Remove the statement from the lead that the MRM is misogynist. Not one of the sources are reliable or in totality satisfy WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead. The sources are labeled [4] - [9]

[4] An article about Russia.

[5] A blog.

[6] A partisan article by a partisan organization, with no expertise in gender issues, (in a earlier article they claim MRA's are pedophiles). They later clarified they don't consider the MRM Misogynist.

[7] Has no mention of the MRM or Misogyny.

[8] From a 16yr old book by two of the most vehement and ardent opponents of the MRM.

[9] A bigoted diatribe from an unpeer reviewed book chapter.

Those are the sources justifying the MRM being labeled Misogynist on Wikipedia. Do you know what the chances of getting that changed are? They are ZERO and you will get probably get blocked for trying, as I am probably going to be now for even broaching this subject.

It is about time a frank an open discussion is held about the charade that has been going on on this page. It is for the well being of Wikipedia and its editors. Unless we start doing this in general Wikipedia is simply going to decline further into crisis. We have been going round in circles for seemingly ever using 'procedures' and getting nowhere. If people really care about Wikipedia they would join me in this endeavor.

CSDarrow (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice on how to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your specific objections to the lead are far more constructive than generalized diatribes. (I have no idea of whether these objections have been made before by you or by others, in which case they could still be considered disruptive.) The stuff following your specific objections is not constructive, as well as unnecessary. If every time you make a comment you also throw in your negative, personal views about Wikipedia, this subject area, etc., that at some point becomes sanctionable in and of itself. I'm not taking any action against you, despite your prediction that I would, for what you posted above, but I suggest you retrain yourself by (1) striking the unnecessary comments and (2) thinking those things next time you post but not writing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I can not overstate how vehemently I disagree. Sometimes it's time to call it as it is, period. Do you honestly believe the statement that the MRM is Misogynist will ever be removed? I am putting myself on the line here cause I care about Wikipedia, it would be easier if I didn't. CSDarrow (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific. I'm returning to editing after a long absence and am still learning the ropes myself, so I'm not prepared to "Be Bold" and make major edits on an article that has as controversial a history as this one, so I hope more experienced editors can chime in with their thoughts on these references. I think you have a point about many of them, however I would tend to disagree with 2 of your objections. For [6] while I know that a lot of people aren't happy with it, I believe that currently the Southern Poverty Law Centre is considered a reliable source for this kind of article. I know that there's been debate on various articles about them as a source, but more times than not the consensus (as far as consensus exists on controversial articles) has been to keep them.

For [9], it looks like that source comes from a book published by the University of British Columbia which, to my mind, is a valid source. I'm not sure whether sources for an article like this must be "peer reviewed" or not, so again, I think it would benefit from more experienced editors' input.

If someone could check our work here and maybe remove some of those sources and/or provide a better explanation (if only so that an inexperienced editor like me can learn a little something :) ), it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I will see if I can find some better sources for that statement.

OP, I do want to be up front that I actually do believe that the MRM has some serious issues with their viewpoints. I personally would call the movement as misguided at best, but regardless of my personal beliefs I do want wikipedia to be as reliable as possible. Be warned, though: in my limited experience studying sociology and psychology, most reliable sources tend to support progressive social movements like feminism and it certainly appears as if in some ways "reality has a liberal bias". This does not mean that everything "my side" says is true, but only that one of our strengths is that we appear better organised when it comes to producing more reliable studies on social issues than the more right-wing or conservative parties do. So, be prepared for better-sourced references to not support all of your ideas and beliefs.Quietmarc (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Quietmarc, A book published by the University of British Columbia is exactly that, ie a published book. There make no more claim to fact checking than any other publishing house. The referenced sectioned is self evidently inadequate as a citation for such a controversial statement in the lead, or in fact anywhere. There is still the issue of Wp:Undue.

Re: "I will see if I can find some better sources for that statement."

This is the old song and dance routine we get into. Citations are discredited then people start looking for others to support the statement. These are then discredited and are replace by others. It goes on and on. The statement should be removed, if others find reliable sources then they should be brought to Talk for discussion. If a consensus is reached, bearing in mind other considerations such as Wp:Undue, then it can be replaced. We do not add a statement then find sources, we find sources than add a statement.

There certianly are problems with the MRM, just as there are with the Feminist movement, the Republican party, the Democratic Party and any movement of any worth. Though I'd ask has your opinion on the state of the chicken coop come from the Fox or the Chickens? This article reads like an essay by the Fox.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All due respect CSDarrow, but we're coming at this from other ends of the ideological divide. I have no intention of performing any sort of song and dance routine. My interest is in helping to create or preserve a well-resourced article on this subject that is in line with wikipedia policies. As I've said, I'm a novice editor and am not prepared to answer your challenges. My understanding of the project, though, is that it often takes a lot of back and forth to make any sort of progress on articles of this nature. I'm willing to put in some time. I accept that the finished project may not completely reflect my own personal biases, and I hope not to write bitter drive-by comments about the failure of wikipedia as a project if that happens. If you are so frustrated with the wiki process, why not take a break or devote your time to a different project where you may find more success?

Or, if you feel so strongly about it, why not remove the statement yourself and see what happens? I'm sure that would draw attention to the article, and with more editors working in good faith we are sure to improve at least some aspect of the whole. Quietmarc (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking a further look regarding the UBC book, in context the sentence is that the MRM has been criticized by groups and academics. The book was published and was (I assume good faith here) critical of the MRM. Now, is the book notable? Is it a valid source? I would say yes, and am waiting to be convinced otherwise. It would seem to me that if notable persons are critical of the MRM, it would violate NPOV to NOT mention that, right?Quietmarc (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning taking a break, I am glad Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela didn't despite their probable profound frustrations at times. New editors are the life blood of this project and I welcome you regardless of your views. Diversity of opinion is crucial for Wikipedia and in fact Society in general. Me removing the statement is probably unwise, I have been round these parts for quite awhile. Concerning the book, not everything uttered by 'scholars' is by definition scholarship. CSDarrow (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't disagree with anything you've said just now. :) But with regard to the phrasing in the lede, whether it is scholarship or not, if the source is recognised in some capacity as notable, regardless of whether or not it is ultimately right or wrong, we are obligated to include it, aren't we? At least within the context of the sentence. The movement has been criticized, and the movement has been called misogynistic. To ignore that wouldn't be accurate or NPOV, wouldn't it? Quietmarc (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The MRM has certainly been criticized, but how that is represented is a complex equation based on good faith judgement guided by by Wp:Undue and Wp:Reliable. There is no simple deterministic formula. My claim is that atm its representation is unfair. CSDarrow (talk)

Assuming the phrase can't be removed, how would you change it? Quietmarc (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. CSDarrow (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly been educational. I'm off to a holiday dinner, but I will see about looking for better sources for the misogyny phrase and will be back tomorrow.Quietmarc (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You will notice the silence from other editors is utterly deafening. I am sure this conversation is being followed by many. I think this page is due for a massive shake up so the Five Pillars as envisioned by Jimbo Wales are more apparent in its construction. CSDarrow (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about my (unenforceable, and maybe unrealistic) commitment to come back with some better sources. Just been busy with "life". If I don't get called in to work tomorrow I'll put in some time here.Quietmarc (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, you are of course correct. WP is clear. But the consensus of the editors of this article is equally clear. "NPOV" does not actually mean NPOV, "avoid weasel words" does not actually mean that the article should avoid weasel words, and so forth. You are pointing out that the "Misogynist" claim is not actually prominent, therefore does not meet with the requirements for the lead. But what of it? If the audience wants to keep the Misogynist language in, and they are violating two policies to do so, they are not going to suddenly change their minds when you accurately point out that they are also violating a third policy as well.64.134.69.209 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Article lede patently incorrect, a correction needed/recommended

The lede of the article says the MRM "branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s." This is patently false, as there were numerous organizations fighting for men's rights long before that. Here are two examples of men's rights organizations from before the 1970's that have verifiable sources:

The World's First Men's Rights Organization - 1926-1930
MRA movement of 1898

Both examples (and there are many others) are impeccably sourced. Should the WP entry not reflect this reality instead of the currently false claim that the MRM branched off the men's liberation movement? 202.173.170.85 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those examples would meet WP:RS but it might be more correct to add the word "modern" in there, like in the history section so it reads something like "the modern Men's Rights Movement branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s". If you look at the history section, it mentions a few examples dating back to the 19th century for the origins of the ideology and various early movements. Its quite clear that there is a disconnect between the modern movement and various outlier organisations from the pre-1960 timeframe. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV on false rape accusation

The section on rape is overwhelmingly biased towards MRA doctrine. Criticisms of the research that is cited, particularly on the incidence and nature of false rape accusation, is entirely absent, whereas it is present in other sections. If we wish to maintain a consistent tone, this needs to be rectified.174.45.108.15 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What type of criticism should we include? This article is about the MRM, and as such presents what their views are. Criticism of the research that they cite would not be appropriate in this article because it's not an article about rape, or false rape. However criticism about the MRM using "bad" research in the subject would be relevant. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional oversight is the lack of information regarding that MRAs often bring up the insufficient definition of rape among many first world nations. It's not just the rate of false accusations, but also the erasure of male victims that is highly objected to. Something not alluded to, at all, in the section on rape. For instance, the current U.S. federal definition of rape excludes "made to penetrate" a form of sexual intercourse where a male is forced to penetrate a person or object against their will. Additionally, in the UK, the crime of rape is specifically worded to be gendered. Women cannot legally commit rape unless they assist a man in doing so. Even if the victim is a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.32.158 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Backlash"

I have edited the lead again because I feel that the use of the word backlash is somewhat misleading. In the section later in the article, entitled "Relation to Feminism," I feel that NPOV is maintained. The section reads: "The men's rights movement is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism.[3][36] The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas.[37] Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men.[15][38][39] They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege[40][41] and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.[42][43][15][44]."

However, I take some issue with the lead. Feminism, as its own article states "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The statement, by itself, that the MRM is a backlash to feminism implies that it opposes political, economic, and social rights for women. The key examples cited in the article on Feminism are "contract law, property, and voting" yet the article contains not a single mention of the MRM opposing anything of these things. It may be more accurate to say that the MRM is a backlash to later waves of feminism but I lack sources. Instead, I have edited the lead to reflect that the MRM sees excesses in the feminist movement (ie the vast majority of the issues on the page) rather than being opposed to the basic principles of the feminist movement. The langugage is not the best and could be improved but I feel it is NPOV to simply present the MRM as opposed to Feminism as the article previously did in its summary. Perpetualization (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and they appear to be constructive, including the removal of the Clatterbaugh which did not support the text. Thanks for your work. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"[T]he MRM is a backlash to feminism implies that it opposes political, economic, and social rights for women." - That's not exactly what's meant by "backlash" in feminist literature. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with what backlash means in feminist literature, I'm concerned about the plain meaning of the word. Perpetualization (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is now a disconnect between the sentence and the sources. All sources explicitly use the term "backlash", not "countermovement". And the sources do not support the "often as a result of perceived excesses" part. The sources clearly state that the MRM seeks to maintain or restore the traditional gender order (e.g., [1]). It's also precisely what most other sources (e.g., ref no. 18 and many others) state. I don't see how Perpetualization's edit is an improvement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has a bizarre emphasis on the MRM starting with the male-liberation movement

From the main entry:

"The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics. The men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity. In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement. Men's rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focused on areas in which they believe men are disadvantaged or oppressed. In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace."

Really, the modern men's rights movement emerged from that? It reads like feminist propaganda to me - ie. to suggest the modern MRM grew wholly out of those ranks. Compare the above paragraph with the following history of the MRM and tell me then if the above appears undue in its emphasis on feminist origins: First and second wave of the men’s rights movement. 58.6.219.145 (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article as written is based on dozens of high quality, academic sources. What you've posted is a Wordpress blog. N^oformation ^Talk 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also a horribly written article. N^oformation ^Talk 11:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to question your intelligence, but the wordpress blog has links leading to a thing called, wait for it, "original sources". The sources can be independently checked by anyone who wants to improve this woefully biased article (this WP article says modern MRM came wholly out of the feminist "men's liberation movement" which the blog sources, which come from actual original sources, shows to be utterly false). Anyone with a "genuine" (as opposed to non-existent) desire to make this article into an honest one is welcome to check those original sources and update the article. 58.6.219.145 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see zero reliable sources cited on the page you linked. I see (1) AVoiceForMen, (2) unknownmisandry.blogspot.com.au, (3) Wikipedia, and (4) gynocentrism.com. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir "I see zero reliable sources" (first of all my response to that: LOL!)- There most certainly are Original sources cited by Unknown History Of Misandry, if you are interested in original sources (i say "if" because I cant see that you have made any effort - so obviously you are not interested). Clearly you need to read reliable sources yourself if you are currently reluctant to look at, or consider, original sources cited at the link above. Originals. Thousands of them. You also clearly need to read and learn about the Undue Emphasis policies on WP, which it occurs to me that you have zero undertanding of. PS. I dont assume for a second that you are interested in having a balanced number of original sources for this article, but they are there in the links I provided for any honest editor who does take an interest in facts. You could therefore continue to ignore the multitude of new sources and keep the Undue emphasis in the main entry about the modern MRM coming exclusively out of feminist "men's liberation" movement. 58.6.219.145 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And with that I'm out of here. I have done great work by linking to a blog that references original sources for all readers and editors who come along here and realize how bankrupt is this claim in the main entry: "The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics." The corrective original sources can be now found and are recorded here and here for all eternity for passers-by - especially for passers by who wish to correct the false emphasis in the article. 58.6.219.145 (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for a moment that we could somehow incorporate the news articles originally cited into the article, there is no indication that early mens rights groups have anything to do with the modern MRM that formed in the 1970s. Looking at the timeline that you've provided, all events in "Early Men’s Rights Activism" stop at 1935 - the text of the WP article currently says "The organizations ceased to exist before 1939.", which conforms with the timeline. In the below chronology of established organizations, the last one mentioned in the 1930s is the Alimony Reform League of New York – Jack Anthony from 1935, and then it skips 25 years going to 1960 with the Divorce Racket Busters (incorporated 1961 as U.S.A. Divorce Reform, Inc.) – California – Reuben Kidd. There is nothing to suggest that there has been one contiguous men's rights movement, and all sources, including the ones you've posted, seem to indicate what the article currently suggestions - that several forerunner organizations existed prior to 1939 but dissolved at that time and a coherent movement emerged in the 1970s in the wake of the feminist and civil rights movements. The only two organizations cited in the chronology past 1935 are two 1960s entries for the same divorce attorney who appears to be primarily concerned with fathers rights. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This page has a group organizing to alter it to suit personal views

This page is currently under organized outside attack as shown here (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRants/comments/20a4ui/feel_like_raging_take_a_look_at_the_wikipedia/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polohina (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I'll mention this on the WP:ANI EvergreenFir (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack is a strong word... just because I and other people disagree with a part of the article and opt to change the part that seems misleading does not qualify it as an attack. StevieY19 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the wording, recruiting editors who are sympathetic to your viewpoint is meat-puppetry (WP:MEAT) and is against Wikipedia policy. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, being shown something and acting on it on my own isn't, in my eyes, recruiting StevieY19 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is of course regarding wikipedias policy. This kind of organized advocacy is probably the single biggest threat to any integrity wikipedia might hope to achieve.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to follow WP's rules. I don't want to do anything against it, as I find this an excellent resourceStevieY19 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia workshops for womens rights movements, no such workshops for men issues?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How does one go about making such a thing happen? I feel that the lack of support men recieve in articles here (countless really) and in real life (eg; womens shelters vs mens), should be addressed. I don't see this as a male vs. female type argument, or event. More so, I feel that this shouldn't be one group attacking another. If anything, it would open up a place for discussion, and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieY19 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) There are no Wikimedia-sponsored workshops for "womens rights movements". Workshops may be held for those editors interested in improving a certain class of Wikipedia articles. --NeilN talk to me 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC) My apologies. How would one go about either joining something like this, or starting this? There are a few that I have seen that could use some group fixing for the neutrality of the articles, that one stands out StevieY19 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Starting a workshop based on wanting to change the POV in a set of articles is a highly problematic suggestion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. I can see what you mean. I just want to help with some things I read, but every thing I see that has been changed for a positive addition to the article at hand was reverted. I am not sure if this is a political issue, a "male vs female" issue, or just people with set in stone mentalities as to how articles should be written. I will do more investigation in an effort to properly do things for the betterment of the site. StevieY19 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I think the best thing you can do is to read the articles and then read the literature on the topic (both the literature you agree with and the literature you dont agree with) and then follow the standard process of discussion, argumentation and consensus building here on the talkpages. It is a time a frustrating process, but it is the only way that wikipedia is able to work in accordance with its goals. Remember that consensus can change, and frequently does when better sources and better arguments are brought to the table. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Here's where you start if you want formal sponsorship - it's not easy and involves a fair amount of work. And, as Maunus says, your starting premise looks problematic. --NeilN talk to me 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you NeilN, I am going to take a step back and do some work before I attempt anything. Jumping the gun is a bad way to do it with regards to stuff that may be a red button issue for many. Appreciate the help all!!!StevieY19 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of female privilege

Is that really sufficient proof for the inclusion of this section? I feel that this section, of all of them, should be removed, as there is very little evidence that women have privilege in patriarchal society, and the 'works' of Clatterbaugh are rarely taken seriously academically. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Backlash"?

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

---

I'm seeing in the first sentence a great deal of bias in this article.

"The MRM is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism, often as a result of a perceived threat to traditional gender roles.[3]"

On the contrary, the MRM oppose feminism because they see feminist political positions as reinforcement of traditional male gender roles for the sake of making women's lives easier (and in the process infantilizing women) (For instance, N.O.W.'s stance on shared parenting, child support, alimony, for instance reinforce the idea of man as ever-absent 1950's-style provider).

There is an excellent MRM article entitled "breaking the pendulum: tradcons vs feminists"*, which goes into great detail arguing against this incorrect assessment. Any feminist who reads this article will see it's describing what feminists term as "patriarchy hurts men too".

• The website is blacklisted, I don't know why

The citations for this statement consists solely of feminist sources, and it's only natural for feminists, with their ideological basis of "patriarchy theory" (society as male-centric oppression-machine) , to believe any groups advocating for men would be advocating for a return to the paradigm of "patriarchy", and thus view it as a traditional conservative "backlash".

The MRM has a great deal to contribute to feminists if they open their minds. The movements could unify if feminists can let go of the antiquated theories which at this point prevent them from accomplishing their stated tenet of equality.

If said blacklisted website is A Voice for Men, then its not an appropriate WP:RS for this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like for you to substantiate why it's not appropriate WP:RS for this article when plenty of feminist news blogs are used for feminist articles, and similar feminist news-blogs are cited for this specific quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What "feminist news blogs" are cited in this article? I've looked through the citation list and can't see any, though I might have missed something. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my query: what makes the article "breaking the pendulum: tradcons vs feminits", which is penned by AVFM and is a primary source, inappropriate WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. " PearlSt82 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK PearlSt82 but how does that relate to this situation?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AVFM is a WP:SPS that in no way meets any of the criteria for WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AVFM is not a "personal webpage", it's a news site with an editing staff and dozens of independent contributors. The article in question provides citation of the materials they talk about and proceeds to make a point based on those materials. This is a classic example of primary critical writing. I'm beginning to think you're deliberately mis-classifying it to shut out dissent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry 15.227.185.75, but PearlSt82 is right. That is self published and is nothing more than a personal blog. It is clearly NOT a news blog. Absolutely not. Thanks for the quick reply Pearl.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Although (and I in no way understand all of what is being discussed) self published content has some very limited uses, but just not for this article it would appear.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

under Mark Miller and PearlSt82's definition of SPS, the NYT, Reuters, and every other journalistic org is an SPS. Also, any study commissioned by anyone and cited is also an SPS. This is nothing but a smoke-screen. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are confused as to what constitutes a news blog....I suggest you review the guidelines for such. And sign your posts please. Accusations of dishonesty from someone not being honest it hilarious.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The only dishonesty I see here is the classification of a news site as an SPS, and a quoted definition of SPS which has no firm basis and thus defaults to "whatever the chief editor doesn't want on the page". I'd like to note the citations utilized for the quote also fall under this definiton of SPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a Newsblog, I am disregarding your comment on that however, 15.227.185.75 I believe you should remember that when you suggest others are being dishonest and are saying such about editors who use their real name and you can't even be bothered to register an account and come up with a fake name only shows a level of hypocrisy many will observe in you.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, since 15.227.185.75 can't even be bothered to follow basic procedures, such as signing their posts, I don't think editors should be taking any suggestions or advice on policy or guidelines here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs From this definition: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals" ---- "professional" is an arbitrary term. You and PearlSt82 are using this arbitrary term to exclude sources you don't personally like, a violation of NPOV

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What newspaper, magazine or news establishment is this personal blog a part of?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So now you're going to be arbitrarily declaring some journalistic organizations are legitimate while others are not. AVFM is its own journalistic organization, involved in the same activites of major papers, including reaching out to subjects to source and confirm their own stories. Do you require NYT to be parented by another organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Belfort Bax

The following links to a page that references primary, notable historical sources of MRM activities over the last century which the main article has left out:

First and second wave of the men’s rights movement 124.170.100.102 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, not a reliable source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, you must be a little 'off the air' making such a glib statement, Sonicyouth86. Try harder. I wasn't saying that the linked page was a reliable source, but rather that the linked-page has some references leading "to" reliable sources, if you follow the trail a little, which I made absolutely clear above; quote: "The following links to a page that references some primary, notable historical sources". Go back and read the sources the page leads to - for real this time. What you will find is citations to original newspaper articles and books. 124.171.199.149 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For instance, the arguably greatest men's rights advocate that ever lived, Ernest B. Bax, who spurred public discussion about men's rights issues around the world, is not mentioned in the main article. What a joke! 124.171.199.149 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Something Ernest B. Bax wrote in the year 1913 in his book The Fraud of Feminism is particularly relevant to this Wikipedia article about the men's rights movement:

“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” - Ernest B. Bax

Not bad for 1913. However I'm sure that same "bluff" in the main entry will continue to be enforced by feminist editors here who claim (scoff) that the MRM grew out of men's liberation (aka feminist) movement in the early 1970s. 124.171.199.149 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Bax largely influenced by Marx and Engels? If so, then even his work would have been a response to a different Feminist movement. Interesting point though. That said, one book doesn't constitute a movement Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IP editor, the linked page has references leading to Wikipedia articles and blog entries, i.e. unreliable sources, about what the author(s) consider(s) men's rights organizations, activists and texts. The page conflates antifeminist, men's rights groups and the organized men's rights movement that didn't emerge until the late 1960s. Belfort Bax was undoubtedly an antifeminist writer ([2][3][4][5]...) whose writings might have influenced forerunners of the men's rights movements (the same way that Otto Weininger's antifeminist and antisemitic musings did) but I haven't been able to find reliable sources suggesting that Bax (or Weininger) was a men's rights activist. By the way, the Austrian Aequitas and Justitia are already mentioned in the main entry, with proper sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't a forum, threads that aren't about improving the article will be closed. Please review this site's guidelines on use of the talk page--Cailil ^talk 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If the talk page is not a forum, why should the article be?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Point made. Off topic and this has been discussed before. Complaints about Wikipedia in general belong somewhere else.

---

Hi,

Discussions about improving the article are somewhat moot until participants agree on what constitutes improvement.

Obviously, the article should not be a rostrum for uncritical self-promotion; otoh, and equally obvious, it shouldn't be a Volksgerichtshof for opponents' condemnation. However, this is the conflict, as far as I can read it from the talk pages.

This conflict plays out on several levels:

- Wikipedia ideals and guidelines: I assume that the top WP ideal is that content should be true. Guidelines to secure this include "Verifiability" etc. etc.; however, when verifiability trumps truth, something is amiss. Then the guidelines serve to obscure, not to clarify; they have been misunderstood or misapplied. Here, of course, it is paramount who gets to decide what the guidelines say and/or do not say, mean and/or do not mean; that there is a discussion about this, is a bad sign. Applying them differently to different pages would be an even worse one.

- Reliable sources: The application of, say, the RS guideline is clearly a case where one should consider whether one is using it as a guideline or as a hammer. The empirical support for this criticism is to be found in the article. The article is supposed to be about, i.d. present the MRM and its views, yet most paragraphs contain not only description of MRM views, but also a discussion of the subject matter of these views: if there is mention of "MRM's claim of men's percentage of x", there is usually a presentation of somebody's opposing view of men's percentage of X, thereby conflating the presentation of the MRM with a discussion of men's percentage of X. Furthermore, while there are references for some of this, in at least one instance sources are interpreted by editors in ways that result in assertions which the original source does not warrant. This shows that, like guideline interpretation privilege, source interpretation privilege is also an important factor in hammering the shape of the article.

I saw that there was criticism of the article wrt. too many mens' issues - editors might reflect on the cicrumstance that there is no article allowing for the listing of mens' issues (or mens' rights, or mens' concerns, call it what you will), and not for lack of editors wanting to create and write such an article, but because e.g. "mens' rights" was nominated for deletion, AFAIK.

IMO not allowing listing concerns that MRM's actually do list as their concerns here on the MRM page, while not allowing listing them on a separate page for that particular purpose, dangerously approaches incompleteness, AKA "the whole truth", which, together with "nothing but the truth" makes for truth, unquotemarked and plain and ordinary. This is where Wiki as a whole must be considered. If it's part of the picture, it won't do to do a Kreml Photoshop job on it. If the MRM article is not the place, fine; but then the issues and concerns must be moved to another article; denying one half of mankind a voice is ... not nice.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I find your assertion that the website is "denying one half of mankind a voice", and I am presuming from your argument that you mean the male gender, really curious. I just have to ask, how exactly is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that in 2011 had 91% male editors, denying the male half of mankind a voice? Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be a funny assertion if it wasn't just so sad because it's true, just not in the way the IP intended. Wikipedia is denying way more than one half of mankind a voice: 93% of editors across *all* wikimedia projects (287 languages...) can at least read English, 35%ish are proficient in at least one programming language, 91% are male-identified, the vast majority are from the global north, etc... Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read the argument repeatedly on both feminist and male rights websites, that is, the one concerning the website not depicting their views, or giving a voice to their gender. After editing in both men's rights and feminism articles, I find that almost every feminist article has a distinctly labelled criticism section, yet there are constant complaints on the men's rights page as to there being any inclusion of criticism to the movements ideas in the article. Furthermore, when discussing this criticism, many say that it is bias against their gender, despite the fact that the majority of the editors on here are male, and from this they are frequently editing with male editors. I genuinely don't understand it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of the above, but this strikes me as odd:

"...there are constant complaints on the men's rights page as to there being any inclusion of criticism to the movements ideas in the article."

The lede specifically labels "sectors of the movement" misogynist. That's hardly a whitewash. Arkon (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he said constant complaints, not constant successful complaints. There have been pretty constant complaints about the inclusion of criticism of the MRM; they just haven't been successful. That said, someone should probably hat this whole section, since it is fairly off topic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

First, true on the hatting. Second, my comment was in relation to the seeming comparison about these complaints with a "distinctly labelled criticism section" in feminist articles. Arkon (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about articles such as Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Cultural feminism, Marxist feminism, Womanism, Postmodern feminism, Sex-positive feminism, Transnational feminism, Post-structural feminism, New feminism, Standpoint feminism, Postcolonial feminism, and Third-wave feminism. As well as Antifeminism and Postfeminism obviously. Anyway, I agree about what you said, it is better to call "sectors of the movement" misogynist than the movement as a whole, as sources tend to be talking about certain sectors within it Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing per request EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Argument against MRA statistics

I thought this article could be worth a read considering many of the statistics used for this page echo the sentiments debunked here.

http://debunkingmras.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/debunking-the-mens-rights-movement-x/

I won't post the whole thing here as it's quite lengthy but I do believe that this particular movement skews facts often.

--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (striking post from first week editing) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, not a blog, then you have something. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blog is sourced --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean the conclusions he draws from those sources are accurate. Climate science denier blogs, for instance, often cite papers by climate scientists and try to find something that supports a science denialist position- but grotesquely misrepresent the contents of those papers. A quick read through of this blog suggests the author is doing a similar thing. His point #8 talks about sentencing disparity for spouse murders but, as I understand it, the MRA complaint is about sentencing disparity in general- that for any crime men get longer sentences than women. He's misrepresented the MRA position and then cherry picked a source that refutes the strawman. Sadly, this kind of intellectual dishonesty is rampant on both sides of the debate. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there are some weak parts in there, but you don't think it holds weight in some part, for the categories on this article of 'Health' in relation to '2. Life Expectancy', for example. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I find his point #2 to be the most infuriating part of the whole thing. But it's useful to illustrate that, from the same facts, you can arrive at completely opposite conclusions. The MRA position, IIUC, is that because the life expectancy of men is lower than that of women, men's health issues are more severe and therefore require more funding. His position seems to be that women should get the bulk of the health care funding because dead men don't need healthcare. Both views can be supported by the same source, but his is heartless and morally repulsive. If I found another blog that cited the exact same sources as this one, and came to entirely different conclusions on every point, would you consider that a reliable source on Wikipedia? Reyk _YO! 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, but I'd argue for the removal of that entire section of "Health", because both are relatively weak standings. Men and women should receive equal funding --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are irrelevant. If the blog uses sources, then it is best to just use those sources directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)