Talk:White Ribbon Campaign

Edit warring

This content has been removed multiple times now, please stop trying to restore it. The content is not NPOV, and it is not reliably sourced - neither the google links nor the annual report links are acceptable sources for the content that is being inserted. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What google sources are you referring to? Please check your facts first instead of having knee jerk reactions. And yes, the content has been removed multiple times now, what does that prove (Wikipedia is not a democracy)? If the content is not NPOV, then fix it so it is. Please provide reliable sources for your assertion that primary sources are not acceptable.Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes before reverting edits. Particularly the part where it says "don't delete salvageable text ... if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral". Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The content is not salvageable, and you have yet to produce a valid reference for the "facts" that you're trying to introduce (criticism like this requires multiple published, reliable secondary sources). Absent real sources there is really nothing to discuss and no reason for the content to be in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The criticism section doesn't even make sense. Where has the White Ribbon Campaign ever stated that they financially support victims of domestic violence? No one would consider those criticisms relevant other than men's rights groups. Also, the sources cited don't mention anything about criticism, so the content seems to be original research. Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Ribbon Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160730004319/http://whiteribbon.org/about/ to http://whiteribbon.org/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Will nobody point out the truth?

White ribbons and white roses were flowers or ribbons placed on young men of war-time age by women patrolling the streets during world war 2 to shame them into enlisting into the army, very often bullying men who were refused enlistment for being needed elsewhere and other capacities.

The actual white ribbon campaign, the first one, was a form of female aggression and privilege, in instituting a demand to have males sacrifice themselves for women and children. Feminists purposely chose this campaign to blur the lines and muddy history that shows men as anything but violent toward women, and quite the opposite.

Historiaantiqua (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing white ribbons with white feathers. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section is poorly worded

“and since as mostly organised by women, much of the funds raised are absorbed into administrative costs, and the day is more slacktivism than producing change.[18][19][20]”

This is poorly worded. “Since it is organized by women, much of the funds raised are absorbed into administrative costs”

These ideas are not connected in the references. Aesthette (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Three separate issues, not causal. Reordered to better separate the points.Q8682 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)