Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 22 April 2015

Template:BLP noticeboard

Template:Community article probation

Articles for creation Start‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted on 18 December 2013 by reviewer Tikuko (talk · contribs).

Men's Issues Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Caitlin Dewey (August 4, 2014). "Men's rights activists think a "hateful" feminist conspiracy is ruining Misplaced Pages". Washington Post. Retrieved August 4, 2014.

COI/Wikipedian In Residence offer

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Desmay (talk · contribs) / A Voice for Men A Voice for Men This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here.)

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Strix technica (talk · contribs) / A Voice for Men A Voice for Men This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here.)

Dean Esmay

As I am Managing Editor of this publication, it would be better if a neutral Wikipedian were in charge of this page, until someone volunteers to be a neutral editor I will continue to make edits in the spirit of Misplaced Pages honestly and NPV, however, I will cease making edits and will exclusively use this Talk page for suggestions if others will step forward to be in charge of the page.Dean Esmay (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

David King

As noted, I am affiliated with AVfM (server operations) and declare my COI. I have some experience with running and using MediaWiki, but never on Misplaced Pages itself — so all guidance is welcome. Like Dean, I will be very conservative with any edits (if any) I make to the article proper, and expect to make most of my suggestions here unless a neutral party suggests I should move a proposal into the article proper. — Strix 14:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A Wehr

I'd be willing to provide dis-engaged proposed edits for this page. I propose organization of this page into a similar format to ideology or literary works pages, and I propose the criticisms and proponents section outline the background from which their criticism comes (ideological leanings, the grounds for their criticism or support -- including relevant quotes).

Unfortunately, Some citations I would provide both to support and refute criticism would be avoiceformen website. This needs to be removed from the spam blacklist in order for me to construct fair criticism/support sections. https://en.wikipedia.org/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm biased but even though I don't own the site I've bee told I can't ask for it to be removed. The historical reasons for the blacklist don't make sense in the modern context of the site (it was a fairly obscure blog when it was enacted). The article can also be whitelisted so links to AVfM can appear here, but I think someone other than me should ask.21:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

1. In the info-box at top reads "Leader - Paul Elam". This should be changed to Founder or CEO, as the leadership of the org is not Paul Elam alone but a coalitian of administrative leaders working together with him. Moreover, leader has an unsuitable Montipythonesque or even North Korean ring to it.

Elam's title is Publisher and it's been updated to read that.Dean Esmay (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

2. The lead reference to AVfM in media-sources starts out with negative press; "A Voice for Men has been noted as a controversial and even hateful or misogynist publication by The New York Times...etc". I suggest that sentence this be retained but placed under this one; " coverage featuring A Voice for Men and its staff have included a segment on Huffington Post Live and Chill Media, the Tom Leykis Show, the Chat Hartman show, Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio, and The Register."

I agree and think that it should be moved to its own section. Brian95620 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also the case that there are responses by AVfM to some of the negative press, challenging them for what we see as inaccuracies. Since we are blacklisted (an appropriate word I think) I don't know how to address that, but in the Misplaced Pages spirit it appears to be important to have as much information as the blacklisters will allow.Dean Esmay (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It does tend to leave it a bit one sided. I asked for clarification on what the best way to handle it was, but was unable to get any. Brian95620 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

3. In this sentence "A Voice for Men has been noted as a controversial and even hateful or misogynist publication by The New York Times" - "hateful or misognynist publication" could be shortened to "misogynist publication" because women are the alleged subjects of the hate. 202.173.170.85 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit redundant and I agree it should be shortened to misogynist. Brian95620 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well we do occasionally also get accused of being white supremacist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and other such rubbish, all of it patent nonsense. Perhaps a link to some of the videos would be done will make it past the Misplaced Pages censors, since the video materials are not on AVfM?Dean Esmay (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Move to Live365 from BlogTalk

AVfM has moved off BlogTalk and onto Live365, a bigger platform, and will soon have all its old archives available either there or available through other sources such as iTunes. Someone may want to at least update it to say we're on Live365 now and not BlogTalk. That move happened a few weeks ago, I forget the precise date but suggested phrasing would probably be "in early 2014." Dean Esmay (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Article probation (12/19)

The article has been placed on probation. One "problem" to whatever extent it is a problem, is that its starting contributions were by me, although Misplaced Pages rules do allow this. Nevertheless we do need someone not-me to continue most of the editing. The flag about not having sufficient referenced material is hard to know what to do with, since whatever is considered not-verifiable is not specified. Will whoever made this assertion please specify?Dean Esmay (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not associated with AVfM in anyway shape or form. I consider this article to a fair encyclopedic representation of the web site and I strongly support the existence of this page on Misplaced Pages. This is given that fine tuning might be in order. The fact that the URL for this site is blocked for use on Misplaced Pages is an embarrassment to the Misplaced Pages project and free speech in general. CSDarrow (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, it would be great if you and others would step up to the plate to help improve the article. I don't care if I'm considered non-objective, it's obvious as a stone that AVfM is a significant and notable web site. Any edits you and other genuinely neutral Wikipedians make would be great. Dean Esmay (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Site URL in infobox

The site URL has been removed from the infobox on the grounds that AVfM's website has (reasonably, in the circumstances) been in the spam blacklist since 2011, apparently because of vandalism and/or inappropriate references in BLP articles. There have been a number of attempts to get it delisted, most recently in June 2013. This is neither the time nor place to rehash whether AVfM should be in the blacklist and, although I don't think there would be any such abuse from AVfM staff ourselves, obviously we cannot control what other editors do. Given my obvious COI, the suggestion made there to whitelist seems perfectly reasonable to me.

As far as the URL in the infobox goes: Since the original blacklisting was an anti-abuse measure, and given that an organisation's URL is rather pertinent to an article about that organisation, why is it not appropriate to include the site URL from the infobox? (I am new to the WP community, and this is a genuine question.) — Strix 01:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, a spam blacklisting for abuse by people we didn't even know about (and would ban from the site if we did know about it) has now turned into a "scarlet letter." This is being discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist if any neutral party wishes to make an observation. Dean Esmay (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What Dean mentions above is now archive at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/12#www.avoiceformen.com for those interested. Ranze (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting. By reading about this, it seems that one can get "any" site blacklisted by using that site domain in his/her attack? So if I hate some site I just use that in abusive way then log in with different account and suggest blacklisting, because an obvious abuse have occured and then this Amatulic comes to declare "This looks like a clear-cut easy case" and site is added to the black list. And it is completely irreversable it seems, it's is permanent crime record without any trial or proofs. It's like someone would spray paint my name all around the city, and then police would come to arrest me and make me pay the cleaning and fines, because I clearly was at fault. --91.153.113.246 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Women and feminism; positive advocacy and negative anti-feminism

I would like to at least propose a section for the article that deals with with AVfM's views on two subjects: the distinction between women (as a demographic) and feminism (as an ideology), and to explain why we see anti-feminism as a constructive part of our advocacy for the needs and interests of men and boys (such as equality before the law, especially in family and criminal courts). Note, I'm keenly aware of the need to maintain NPOV and encyclopaedic value, and I specifically mean for this to be informative rather than promotional.

Because of COI, I am hesitant to know how to approach this. By asking the question, I have effectively requested that somebody write such a section; should I briefly bullet point what I would like to see included, or is it worth my making an attempt to write an NPOV passage for consideration on a sandbox page? Would a neutral editor or admin be willing to offer guidance? — Strix 02:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Strix, I recommend you create such a section here and leave it for other editors to assess and add to the entry as they see fit. This area is a neutral area and your proposed edit could profitably be placed here if you are interested in writing it. 202.173.170.85 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Voice_for_Men

It was recommended a "criticism" section be introduced, so I did just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koen23468 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unfortunately it seems this page has become a target for vandalism. Perhaps due to this Dailycaller or something like it. Nonsensical unsourced criticism "re-defining any and all feminism as hate speech", feminism is a group of people and as such can only be a hate group, not hate speech. As that and all other edits were unsourced and in violation of the NPOV, it was removed. Brian95620 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section was agreed upon above, is part of the proper formatting, is not a violation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criticism policy, and as this page is barely more than a page long, hardly hiding anything. It may however be more appropriate to rename that section "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". Brian95620 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Week

Re this bit:

'A Voice for Men has sometimes been accused of being controversial or misogynist publication by...The Week

Citing The Week makes no sense in this context - as anyone who reads it knows, The Week has no significant editorial content of its own; it is merely a digest of other publications. So it doesn't accuse anyone of anything. 90.217.251.161 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re the whole section:

In following up the links to the New York Times and Souther Poverty Law Center -- neither of these articles accuses AVFM of being a misogynistic publication. This is the only mention of AVFM in the NYT article: "Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny"

The article is not about AVFM, and it is disingenuous to cite it. Further, the other cited articles have seen a fair bit of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.65.12 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The Times Editorial Board and The Southern Poverty Law center did not themselves make such an accusation. They published articles that may have. The attribution should not be to the organizations, but to the articles and their authors. Memills (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First International Conference on Men's Issues

I removed this content under WP: Crystal, it's a projected conference some time in June which will have at most 300 people at the conference. One of the requirements for future events to be mentioned is that the subject matter has to have sufficiently wide interest. Right now the only interest I'm seeing in this conference is from Mens Rights groups, and those sympathetic to Men's Rights groups. As such this conference does not belong in this article. After the conference we can possibly add information about it if we have reliable sources about the subject matter, but right now it's inclusion is a violation of WP: Crystal. It also appears to violate WP: PROMO. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO, it should be readded after the event if it gets notable press coverage --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it falls under WP:CRYSTAL as it meets the requirement for an exemption(the event is notable and almost certain to take place), however it may fall under WP:PROMO. Brian95620 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-transgender movement

The sentence added which says that AVFM is part of the Anti-transgender movement is not sourced, and appears to be a bunch of Original Research. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, the writing is= The website is also a part of the anti-transgender movement, charging that male-to-female transsexuals are 'self-hating' men and regarding transgender therapy as forms of 'mutilation'.

I had a source referring to anti-transgender content but it seems to have been garbled and lost in editing. For right now, it seems perfectly reasonable to remove the writing in the interim.{{subst:03:52, 19 May 2014‎ CoffeeWithMarkets}}

At least three different transgender authors have written for the site, and site management consistently maintains that it rejects transphobia. Examples could be linked if this page were removed from the blacklist or at least whitelisted. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of rape, false allegations of rape

False allegations of rape would also be included in allegations of rape, to use only allegations of rape removes the intended meaning. While its true that AVFM has published on topics including both rapes that have not yet been decided in a court of law and laws involving allegations of rape(rape shield laws), the use of false allegations of rape covers cases like Brian Banks and the Duke Lacrosse. It might be more accurate to put in both. Brian95620 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should probably put allegations of rape and false allegations of rape. The Paul Elam quote "should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true" and the misinformation on website concerning the frequently of false allegations puts them in a position where they could be considered as being against any allegations of rape in a legal setting, true or not --31.205.21.96 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This article sets out Elams opinions on rape trials quite clearly (archive.today link as AVFM is blackllisted) --2.221.89.130 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Said article does not set out Elam's opinions on rape trials clearly at all. It has been repeatedly explained as angry satire. Elam's serious opinions appear in several articles which can easily be read on the site.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The recent edits by an IP , , and are not neutrally worded, and are POV in their presentation. The allegations of straw-feminism aren't supported by sources, the change from "less critical" to "less In-depth", The addition of "while promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance. For this reason, Misplaced Pages does not allow links to A Voice for Men.", and other changes are in violation of . --Kyohyi (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It calls Marc Lepine a feminist hero, and frequently assures us that the worst of 2nd wave radical feminism represents feminism as a whole, facts any basic google search will reveal. An article that refers to empty headed narcissists begging to be raped, another uses the more diplomatic term of "estrogen based parasites", while claiming the KillAllMen hashtag was literally calling for the end of all men - do I need to go on? Claiming this blog is simply advocating for men's issues is a violation of NPOV, and similar to claims the Klan merely promotes the best of white culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What you need to do IP is to edit in a NPOV way, while you may have valid claims about the article structure and it's neutrality what you are doing is edit warring, and adding material that violates core content policies such as WP: NPOV and WP: V. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AVfM does not consider Marc LePine a hero, and a single article sarcastically calling him a hero to feminists should not be used to claim this is the editorial position of the site, which it is not. Dean Esmay (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources?

Can someone provide a reliable source for the following claim:

Its editorial slant is strongly critical of both feminism and conservative traditionalist views of men and women, masculinity and femininity, charging both feminists and conservatives of being actively misandrist in their mindset, while promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance.

While it's obvious that A Voice for Men opposes feminism, it's not self-evident that A Voice for Men criticizes conservative traditionalist views of anything or that it claims that feminists and conservatives are "promoting aggressive misogyny as a social counter-balance". There are some sources in the men's rights movement article that point to rather strong ties between the men's rights movement and (neo-) conservatism. Thus, the statement quoted above is unsourced and in contradiction to RS in the MRM article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. My unclear sentence structure was at fault. My point was that the kind of "A Voice for Men" articles calling for the release of all accused rapist/mocking rape victims are often called satire by the men's rights movement. Although they don't meet the definition of satire (one article victim blames in order to protest being accused of victim blaming when giving advice, and victim blaming seems to be the entire goal, since there's literally nothing else - another makes up a system of law where accused rapists are automatically guilty, in order to create sympathy for accused rapists), it's more difficult to refute frequent claims from the MRM like these http://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27bpu8/why_rmensrights_should_distance_itself_from_paul - that they're a form of extreme speech that's meant to counter what they see as a societal hatred of men. A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam used to post there, and wasn't shy about explaining his motives. I'd link to A Voice for Men itself, if it was allowed. 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on this are easily available on the AVfM site itself. Including articles that reference every one of these subjects directly where citation is being requested. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I just reverted an edit by an IP, adding something to the lead about "mocking rape culture." As they stood, the edits were not neutral, and so I removed them. However, based on personal knowledge, the allegations do have merit; it should also be kept in mind that as an overwhelmingly male society, Misplaced Pages needs to take extra care with such as article. To come to the point, the allegations of sexism are prominent enough that there have got to be good sources on the topic. We should attempt to find such; if there aren't any, the current version would be additionally strengthened. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. I've done the research, and included the references you requested. Unfortunately, someone keeps reverting my edits, in order to spin the controversy so that it appears feminists simply don't want any criticism. Edit: They've just claimed analysis the Southern Poverty Law center and Huffington Post don't count as sources, or failed to read the links. Someone really wants this page to be an ad for the site. Also, I really need to sign up for an account. You sent me a message telling me how to sign my identity here, but the window crashed and I don't know how to access it. 2601:1:3000:116:3D4A:FB7E:27DA:5EF6 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube as a source

Youtube is not RS for the purpose of this article, and I don't believe Paul Elam's appearances on talk radio are notable enough for inclusion in this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with this, Youtube is not reliable as it is currently used, but youtube itself is not defacto unreliable. In order for a video to be reliable it needs to be posted by the organization making the claim. In essence if we say group X says this Y about other group Z, and the source is a youtube video, we need to make sure that the youtube video is being posted by group X. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue arises because there is no way to ensure the authenticity of an account on youtube. If the youtube video were linked to by the official website of the magazine, then we could perhaps use it. Also, using a video raises OR issues, because any summary that is not a quote would be OR, and any quote is liable to be cherry-picked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The accounts in question have been linked to by the organization in question, something a quick google search can prove, and while I agree that it might be better to have a direct link to the source at the site, thats not possible since it is blacklisted. As it stands these secondary sources are the best possible for this article. If there is any question about the authenticity of a particular source, that can be discussed individually. Brian95620 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The talk radio segments are WP:UNDUE and the youtube video cited for "legal paternal surrender" is by Karen Straughan who is speaking on behalf of herself, not AVFM. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that this is the opinion of a prominent writer, I linked to a second source for it from another prominent staff member, but agreed that personal blog is not a good source. You have failed to rebut my points, failed to give a reason why these are unduly weighted, and continue to try to move the goalposts. I am not going to continue to argue as you reach from one policy to another in an attempt to find something that agrees with you. Until or unless a time comes when AVFM is not blacklisted, the only reliable way to source them remains third party hosting like youtube. Brian95620 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. Elam's appearances on talk radio are not notable, and Straughan is speaking on her on behalf, not AVFM's. If she had a video titled "The Positions of A Voice For Men on _________" that might be a different issue. As such, the current video listed should only be used as RS for an article on Karen Straughan (and even then it might not be appropriate). PearlSt82 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That policy deals with unrelated, or barely related material being giving undo space on a page. The example given is a flat earth segment on the earth page. That interview is of the owner of AVFM talking about AVFM and is encompassed in a single sentence. That policy does not apply to this. Karen, a member of AVFM staff, produced a video series on that subject that was then endorsed by AVFM hosting it. If AVFM had put up a disclaimer saying it was not their opinion you might have a point, but I haven't been able to find one after hours of researching this. Please stop removing information from the page until a consensus has been reached. Brian95620 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the talk radio segments, they are absolutely undue for inclusion. Their inclusion gives undue weight to non-notable appearances to try to balance out criticism which comes from reliable, notable sources. In regards to consensus, three editors have stated they feel this material is not appropriate for inclusion here, and you are the only one pushing for it. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I'd like to address the idea of "Until or unless a time comes when AVFM is not blacklisted, the only reliable way to source them remains third party hosting like youtube" specifically - this is not accordance with any policy. When there are not reliable sources for a subject due to the blacklist, the solution is not to bring in unreliable sources. If there is an article on AVFM that is appropriate for the inclusion in this article, you can make a request at the Spam whitelist page to have it be included in this article. Given that this is the AVFM article, I think the only place that the whitelist would apply for AVFM is here. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how a youtube video is a good source in this context. Generally references at this level should be verifiable (e.g. news reports that are edited for publication, academic papers that rely on references), whereas here we have a personal video that is edited for spin --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

AVfM International Conference on Men's Issues

They had their conference recently, a major event that deserves a heading of its own in the entry. Lots of news sources to back it up. 124.150.87.201 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd describe a conference with 100 attendees as a "major" event, but its certainly gotten news coverage in RS and I think would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It was covered on a few news outlets but the coverage was almost exclusively negative (that is, not counting an article on USAtoday written by Glenn Reynolds - the wife of conference speaker Dr. Helen and a pretty biased source due to this) so it would be difficult to summarise the conference without drawing heavily on these criticisms, something that would be unpopular with the MRAs that edit here. Anyway, here are all of the reliable sources that I've found if anybody feels up for it: . I feel that the MSNBC, SPLC and Time articles are particularly thorough and well-written --2.221.89.130 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The criticisms should definitely be worked into the article with proper attribution as its a common thread that runs through all of them. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I get your point, if you feel up to writing them then we could write it into the article in an appropriate manner. If it were one or two articles then the argument that they are biased may have some weight. The fact that so many do proves that they are distinct problems with the event --2.221.89.130 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Further source (and also a pretty good summary of Elam) and one more --2.221.89.130 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Only ref's 7,13,14 look suitable for inclusion. Arkon (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you picked some of the better articles. I think 16 is pretty well written too and puts the event into perspective - however, it is not a news outlet. In case the numbers change, that is, in order, MSNBC, Washington Post, Time and RHRealityCheck. I figured I'd collect them all together anyway, some are probably more opinion pieces but they cover the narrative of events when read together --2.221.89.130 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is also pretty good --2.221.89.130 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

One more source --90.200.211.46 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Helen Smith was not a presenter, she only spoke at a separate press conference. Also, AVfM offered specific responses to much of the negative coverage, challenging assertions made by reporters, and also featured complete verbatim transcripts of all presentations. If this conference is going to be referenced, the most authoritative source would be those videos and transcripts, all of which are online. I would suggest getting the avfm domain whitelisted and the transcripts be referenced so that readers do not merely see what is reported but can view the entire conference for themselves. It is, after all, free online. Dean Esmay (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

White Ribbon

The recent edits on AVfM's opening of its own Whiteribbon.org site as an "imposter" site are a violation of NPOV policy; this does not accurately reflect the site's statement. I suggest AVfM response to these allegations be allowed somehow on this site to reflect what AVfM's stated position is, which is that White Ribbon is being used dishonestly by other organizations to spread false information on domestic violence, that the whiteribbon.org site clearly states that it's owned by AVfM, and that the White Ribbon has been used by multiple sources and is not trademarked, and thus, any allegations of trying to fool the public are nonsense. Again, I'm only Wikimedian In Residence here but AVfM's rebuttal of these claims should be allowed in some fashion. I am open to suggestions on what to do about that. Whitelisting the site and allowing a response by AVfM certainly seems justified to me. Dean Esmay (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for rewording the paragraph I am open to ideas. I will be rewording it as well as I can and reposting it. The suggestions you have made so far would not be acceptable as they would violate NPOV. You are essentially suggesting that this article should slander an organization that existed for 23 years prior to AVfM's site, which is obviously unacceptable. More of the stated intentions of the .org site can be worked in, but since ALL RS have been critical of the site and have made it clear that the site is seen as an imposter site intended to divert funds and attention away from an established organisation, that would have to be included as well. I can see that you have suggested on multiple occasions that you would like for AVfM to be whitelisted, but at this stage it is not going to happen so you'll have to be more creative with your suggestions. The issue of trademark is something for the lawyers to discuss and has nothing to do with the article. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Being the person who did the revert I would be careful of calling some of those sources used reliable sources. Two of the sources are from David Futrelle's blog, and that is not a reliable source at all. What's more the other three are biased opinion pieces. They can be reliable for their opinion, but not assertion of facts. What's more, from what I see from the whiteribbon page itself, the organization is almost completely run by Paul Elam, and you have to be careful of running afoul of WP: BLPGROUP. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that 2 of the sources could be considered unreliable, but some others are reliable. I have some assistance in reworking it and I will be rolling out a revised version in the next day or so. I am curious as to why you removed the section wholesale as opposed to editing it in a way that you would have believed acceptable? Surely you are not unfamiliar with WP:DNB. It is seriously harsh to simply erase the wrok someone has done as opposed to collaborating nicely - your move was hostile. Paul Elam does not have a biography page, nor is his biography listed on this page, so WP: BLP is not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul Elam doesn't need a biography page to be covered by BLP, and BLP can apply if the organization cannot be separated from its individual members, that's the point of WP: BLPGROUP. I am familiar with WP: DNB and I am also familiar with WP: BRD, and in this case you made a bold change, I reverted, and we discussed. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Elam cannot be separated from the organisation. He has only a cursory mention as the founder. Also, he is careful to declare that some of his statements are satire and not necessarily representative of the movement. BLP does not apply here any more than it would any other article about any other organisation that was founded by a person who is still living. You're suggesting special treatment for him above and beyond what is to be expected on any article Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, however from the website's about page "This website is owned and operated by Paul Elam". He very much puts his name on the site, and we have to be careful about how we portray content about that site. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make BLP apply here. You can try to shoehorn all you like, but the shoe just doesn't fit. We do not have to give the same care to a website that we would give to a BLP Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliably sourced info on the campaign described as "impostor campaign" to white ribbon would not be BLP violation, if neutrally worded and reliably sourced, and it is on topic for this article. Voice for Men's response to such reliably sourced criticism would also be on topic and appropriate, if neutrally worded and reliably sourced.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Paul Elam his real name?

Just realized that Elam is Male spelled backwards. Which makes me wonder if that's his real name, or a nom de plume/nom de guerre he's adopted. If it is his real name, it'd certainly be an odd coincidence. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened. Elam is an actual surname, see Matt Elam, Jack Elam, Joseph Barton Elam, Abram Elam, Katrina Elam, etc. Anything to suggest that its a pseudonym should be coming from a RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Be wary of citing references

I just went through a list of references which allegedly describe this site as being either controversial or misogynist, and I could not find statements in them supporting that interpretation.

I kept these references (now improved with proper dates and authors) in place, and included some brief quotes from them where the web-site is described. The adjectives actually used in those quotes have replaced the controversial and misogynist descriptors, which I have removed until they can be properly sourced.

If someone wants to add these back, please do as I have done and cite a quote from the article properly which demonstrates the site being described this way. --Ranze (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this because most of these quotes are taken out of context. You absolutely cannot use the word "collegial" to describe how the SPLC views AVFM in that article.PearlSt82 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion is an inappropriate response, you are looking for excuses to remove information. If you take issue with the term collegial then you are free to replace it with something else from the article, but it should be from the article, not just made-up. To appease your concern I will attempt to replace that with something more descriptive. --Ranze (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still completely inappropriate as it cherry picks various words in the article and completely misses the point of what the articles are trying to say. It is still a complete misrepresentation of all the sources and a clear attempt to whitewash AVFM's publicity. All these sources discuss misogyny and the controversial nature of AVFM's publications. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing I did to cherry-pick was find statements in the articles directly about the site and ignore statements made about other things. It is not for us to decide underlying points, only to convey what the articles directly state. I believe I did add some criticism from those sources so I would not call it a white-wash. In response to your concern and highlighting though (via searching the initialisms, something I didn't do) more criticism from the sources has been added to the page.

Discussing misogyny is not enough, it must call the site itself misogynistic, evidence must be supplied. If it is called controversial, cool, please provide a quote including the word 'controversial' from every single reference. It seems to me that solely focusing on the term controversial or misogyny is itself cherry-picking only negative things though, so I think instead we should provide a collection of all things said (about the site) from each source and not give one kind of statement priority over another. Ranze (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference vandalism

In https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=636485708 I believe the reversion of PearlSt82 is a biased vandalism of this article. Pearl has removed details from the references and made the sourcing of this article vague, while we are trying to improve how this article is referenced. Pearl has also added back false statements which I removed.

The references in question do not uniformly accuse AVFM as being controversial or misogynist. I provided actual quotes which support what the sites actually. Pearl is not only injecting original research, but also mistaken research.

This article clearly needs oversight if edits like this are allowed to persist. I will be requesting oversight. --Ranze (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets see. The SPLC source was described as presenting the AVFM as "collegial" (the article says that Elam took a "collegial tone at first" to the initial SPLC article but then goes on to outline the specific issues dealing with misogyny and violence). Theweek article talks about the misogyny at AVFM and is appropriately sourced as written - "influential" is inappropriate here as it is an inaccurate summary of the article's points. Exact passage: Rather than just offering a platform for misogynistic rants, AVFM, Crimes Against Fathers, and other MRM communities are now on the offensive, creating sites to post photos and contact information of women they claim falsify accusations in rape, pedophilia, and divorce trials. Same with Macleans and the word "popular", example passage: After a similar men’s rights event, organized by CAFE in April, there was a similar clash of protesters, and afterwards A Voice for Men posted a video from the event. In the clip, a red-haired woman is reading an article about the shared goals of feminism and men’s rights, while swearing at those who interrupted her. The video quickly reached over 100,000 views; hundreds of comments flooded in from men’s rights activists, threatening to beat, rape and murder the woman in the video. The woman, Charlotte (who is using a pseudonym for safety reasons) says that men’s rights activists disseminated her personal information, including what they believed to be her home address, and sent her hundreds of violent, graphic and sexualized threats, which included personal details such as her dog’s name and her favourite karaoke bar.. The Daily Beast source details misogynistic content posted by AVFM. Example passage: However, there is a significant disconnect between what MRM leaders say when accused of misogyny and the often-misogynistic content they are willing to write and publish. Much of this content appears as angry fist-shaking. Recently, for example, AV4M’s Jason Gregory posted an open letter to all women that said, amongst other things, “We don’t need you in the house anymore, so get the f**k out… Perhaps you should consider making yourself useful as something other than a sandwich-maker and create a meaningful existence for yourself.” and huffpo source uses the word misogyny several times to describe the MRM's outlook. Describing these sources as "collegial", "influential", "popular", "the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website", "and involved with less progressive elements", as opposed to what was originally written (misogynist and controversial) is absolutely misrepresenting what these sources say. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: Would be nice if this was spaced out, I will offer that courtesy. Hope you don't mind but I am bolding the publication names in your post to allow for better reading in relation to these bullets:

• I fixed the 'collegial' wording from SPLC by making it more thorough, if you take issue with what I quoted or how I paraphrased what was quoted, that does not mean you should revert the ENTIRE edit, that's ridiculous and excessive. Please just work on improving it. By reverting this, you are restoring false data, misrepresenting those sources, as I will explain regarding your other claims. The problem here is that a source is supposedly claiming something is "controversial" or "misogynist" so every source in that list MUST claim 1 of the 2 about the site, and you must demonstrate how it does so.
• TheWeek DID call the site influential, you are obscuring the truth by removing that part. TheWeek did not call the site misogynistic, it implied that it provided a platform for misogynistic rants, that is different, we must represent the meaning properly. I will restore 'influential' but expand it by also adding the 'platform' part. You are noticing parts I did not notice, that is good, just like me noticing something you did not. Co-operatively we can better represent those sources in a fair manner.
• The Macleans excerpt you provide does not call the site controversial or misogynist, I am not sure why you used it.
• The Daily Beast excerpt is not caling AVFM misogynist, it is particularly referring to someone named Jason Gregory. A comment on a single poster is not a comment on the entire site.
• what HuffPo says about MRM is irrelevant, the statement must be about AVFM

What was originally written, whether it presents what sources say accurately or not, should be supported by evidence through direct links to quotes. My data was directly linked to quotes, so it belongs here, and I will be restoring it.

Feel free to add additional ideas from these references though, I will take the initiative of adding some data you have brought to my attention, but that does not warrant removing the information I added which is part of those references too. I believe if we add what jumps out to both of us that collectively we will represent them better.

I hope you will like the improvements I made to Tbe Week, Maclean's and Daily Beast, I hope perhaps we can agree that what I have done with those two is a step in the right direction. My research was sloppy, when statement-mining I just searched 'voice' thinking it would turn up all relevant quotes. I was too dense at the time to search for 'AVFM' or AV4M' which would have turned up the later statements you located.

Regarding the Charlotte issue which is discussed by Maclean's: all this says in relation to AVFM is that they posted a video of her, it doesn't claim the site is controversial or misogynist, far as I can see. If you believe otherwise, please provide some statements.

I have added those quotes to the references too, and incorporated them into a broader paraphrase of the reference content.

Besides Week/Maclean's/Beast though, if you believe these other sites say something about either controversiality or misogyny, first please decide which of the two you are arguing for (or if you mean both) Secondly, please find excerpts which talk specifically about the site (not about MRM) and interpret them reasonably.

This has to be done for:

• Huffington Post
• New York Times
• SPLC

You made solid arguments for only 3 of the 6 sources we are discussing being expanded, awaiting the second half. Ranze (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that you admit you are "statement mining" and not reading the entire article - you're looking for a specific conclusion and drawing that from words that happen to be in the article. The sentences should accurately reflect what the RS says. For the SPLC source, it is inaccurate to boil the point of the whole article down to AVFM being "initially collegial-toned until later". This is a very minor point in the article and mentioning it as the sole citation for it certainly violates WP:UNDUE. For the NYT source, it says Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny. - I don't know how you can pretend this doesn't support the text "misogyny". The huffpo source is primarily about the controversial nature of AVFM. Right now the sentence reads: A Voice for Men has been described by writers as a Manosphere blog being deeply misogynist, containing anti-feminist hostility, initially collegial-toned until later an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter, reviled by feminist bloggers, the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website (light-years ahead of New York Times in one area) led by John Hembling with female editors, quality female writers, and an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content and involved with less progressive elements." which is a completely unreadable run-on sentence, full of WP:UNDUE language. While its better representative of the sources than before, I still don't see how its better than "misogynistic and controversial" which accurately summarize the sources in two words, not a handful of run-on clauses. PearlSt82 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have read this post first before replying below. I agree with everything PearlSt82 says here and I think "misogynistic and controversial" is better than what I wrote. Ca2james (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pearl has posted some bad-intended seeming comments, I expect you to address the following criticism if you are going to throw yourself into that boat.

The problem with M and C or C and M is that to apply sources collectively to that phrase, each one needs to say that, and that is not what I found.

Pearl I never said I did not read the entire articles, I read them all in full. My use of the -find- function was done subsequently after that since I do not perfectly memorize what I read, to help find where things were said about the site.

Your accusation that I am looking for a specific conclusion is unwarranted, please apologize for that rudeness. The only thing I specifically looked for was the terms the references were supposed to support (controv and misog) and when I could not find them, I looked for the site name itself, to see if there was anything at all to warrant the reference remaining, to support a new factual statement.

If not for the collegial statement, the SPLC article would not have mentioned AVFM directly at all, so if you found what I did locate to be lacking consequence, you could simply delete it and the SPLC source.

The NYT source only states anti-feminist hostility, the if-not statement about outright-misogyny is not NYT saying they engage in misogyny.

The HuffPo source is not currently included as a reference for -controversial- applying to AVFM, so I was right to call that into question and re-appropriate that reference by applying it to a real statement.

That said, I now realize I should have done some quote brackets until we could figure how to reword phrases accurately.

Yup, it looked ugly, which is why I made a section about that, but ugliness is not the worst thing in the world...

While its better representative of the sources than before

I still don't see how its better than "misogynistic and controversial"

You answered your own question. Accuracy is more important than prettiness. As ugly as my run-on clauses were, they were accurate summaries. The two-words you keep defending were not, because some of the references did not use either of the terms to refer to the site. Too much personal interpretation was being done, they were too distant from the sources. --Ranze (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, your language is not at all more accurate than what was written initially ("misogynist and controversial"). PearlSt82 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You just said it is better-represenative, sounds like more-accurate to me. Things have been arranged so that only the source calling the content misogynist (cosmo) is listed next to that word. I assumed good faith that NYT called it controversial and left that there since I didn't feel like checking on your work yesterday. 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant better representative when compared to your initial edits, not compared to what was written initially ("misogynist and controversial"). PearlSt82 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh removals

This is the paragraph removed here:

A Voice for Men features regular articles on subjects impacting men's and boys' issues, including education, circumcision, homelessness, rape, false allegations of rape, domestic violence, allegations of domestic violence, promoting financial abortions, paternity fraud, cultural misandry, media bias, criticism and satire of what it claims to be modern feminist positions and cultural conservatives. It runs several radio shows including AVfM News and Activism, Honeybadger Radio, The Voice of Europe, and Revelations with Erin Pizzey.

I think it would be good to break down this content into points to see which can be reliably sourced and restored and which should not be.

The first sentence can be broken down into a couple assertions:

• that AVFM features articles on 13 example subjects
• that those subjects impact male issues
• that the articles about these subjects are "featured" or "regular"

I would suggest going with the first bullet point. Presumably for each topic we should include a reference point showing evidence that there has been an article about that subject on the site. Whether these individual issues are addressed "regularly" and whether they are an 'impact' would be secondary/tertiary consideration.

I would like some input on what would be an acceptable refereence. My first instinct is to think "okay, just link to an article about that subject on the site" or "link to the category about that subject which would make a list of several articles". But I am concerned that such references might be rejected as too primary.

To support that the site has published an article on a topic, would we need to find a claim about that on another reference?

Also of concern is the last sentence, which is an entirely separate point. It regards 4 different radio shows allegedly run by AFVM. While I am aware of all 4, and do believe the site runs them, I would like input on how to properly evidence these facts. Would linking to the radio show's page be sufficient? Or is that too primary? Or would a newspaper have to report on the radio show and claim it is affiliated with AVFM as a seconary ref? --Ranze (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:RS. Primary sources, such as a radio program, aren't enough to support statements. Reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles are required to support additions to the article. Primary sources can be added as well as secondary sources but those secondary sources are required.

To that end, I've removed much of the radio stuff because it's just a list of some programs with no critical analysis or discussion of those programs. Bare mention of the subject doesn't make for a reliable source. Ca2james (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty-up needed

Although I have now improved the 2nd paragraph so that it only makes statements based on the references, it now looks kind of ugly. I am wondering if anyone could possibly re-arrange it or re-word it (while keeping accuracy intact) so that it flows a bit bettter. Here is the current state:

A Voice for Men has been described by writers as a Manosphere blog being deeply misogynist, containing anti-feminist hostility, initially collegial-toned until later an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter, the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content and involved with less progressive elements.

Or if I break it into points based on the reference summaries:

A Voice for Men has been described by writers as

1. a Manosphere blog
2. being deeply misogynist,
3. containing anti-feminist hostility,
4. initially collegial-toned until later
5. an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive
6. a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter,
7. the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content
8. involved with less progressive elements.

There may be a better grouping than present order to make these flow better, or minor variations in phrasing. Accuracy is more important than readability, so this content should be retained, and statements should remain linked to references, but overall it just seems jumbled. Rather than an ongoing list, if this could be broken into separate sentences (perhaps based on any commonalities people see in the ideas I have found expressed in these references) then it would be less of a mess.

Although "x sites say it is controversial or misogynist" was simple and good-flowing, it was unmexact, blatently false in many cases, and blatent name-dropping. Links to Misplaced Pages articles about news sources belong in the references, which should be listed alongside the statements. --Ranze (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good additions, you are doing good work --5.81.50.152 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This information should be presented as a paragraph, not as a list, and it needs some serious punctuation help. Some of the phrases are direct quotes without quotation marks and so are WP:COPYVIOs - putting a reference isn't enough: if you use a direct quote it must be in quotation marks. Reference is incomplete.

Finally, some of those statements make no sense. The following phrases are problematic:

• initially collegial-toned until later - this makes no sense. Also, it's referring to a single incident mentioned once and including it is WP:UNDUE.
• an influential MRM site offering a platform for misogynistic rants now on the offensive -most of this is actually OK, except for the "now on the offensive" part. It's unclear and appears to be referring again to a single situation.
• a popular site which attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website and has announced fund-raising for a shelter - again, most of it is fine but the "has announced fund-raising for a shelter" part has no bearing on the way the site has been described.
• the MRM’s largest and most visible on-line website with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content - again the first part is fine but the secind part - "with an MRM leader who posts misogynistic content" doesnr flow or make sense in this context so should be removed. It's clearer and more accurate to say that others have said that others have said thatthe site posts deeply misogynistic content. Which is covered by another point.
• involved with less progressive elements - this makes no sense, it's wishy-washy, and is better removed.

While I agree that in this case it's better not to say that the NYT said something, it's unnecessary to include such detailed phrases. We're here to sum up what the reliable sources say and I think this can be done much more efficiently and encyclopaedia-like. This paragraph would work:

A Voice for Men is the largest, most popular, and most visible and influential MRM site. Its content has been described as "deeply misogynistic" and hostilely anti-feminist.

Ca2james (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph per mine and PearlSt82's suggestion because of the WP:COPYVIO concerns I've raised. Copyright violations are serious business and can't be left as-is so please don't blindly revert. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Another problematic paragraph

The paragraph following the one under discussion in the preceding section has issues. This is the paragraph in question:

Less critical coverage featuring A Voice for Men and its staff have included a segment on Huffington Post Live and Chill Media, and The Register.

It's of the form "source says x" which isn't oprimal. Of greater concern is the fact that the source don't support the statement that the site isn't discussed critically.

I haven't viewed (it appears to not work on my mobile) so could you please tell me when the avfm site is first mentioned?

isn't actually referenced properly as the ref should note that this us an archive. Anyways, avfm is mentioned only in passing in the article whose main subject is movember. This type of mention is not at all the same as "less critical coverage" and including this ref is misleading.

also doesn't support "less critical coverage". It's an article about the site being branded as a hate group by Symantec and us written neutrally which is not at all the same as not critically. This ref should also be removed.

To be clear, a source mentioning avfm in passing does not mean that the source belongs in this article - especially when the source is intended to support the "less critical" kind of statement. In fact, this paragraph reads very much like WP:OR and should be removed unless you can can find reliable sources that portray avfm positively. Ca2james (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm listening to right now and I'm not hearing anything that supports the statement that the coverage is less critical. In that source, Dean Esmay for avfm is part of a panel of experts discussing male rape, which is not the same thing as a reliable source discussing avfm itself in less-critical terms. Therefore, the statement is wholly unsupported by the references provided and must be deleted as WP:OR unless reliable sources supporting it can be found. Ca2james (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think this paragraph should be removed. It strikes me as an attempt to introduce a false balance into the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not for outright removal of all the content there, we could certainly salvage the sources. "Less critical" is pretty vague and sounds like someone on Misplaced Pages making an evaluation of the statements. Instead I think it would be better to find what the references in that paragraph say about the site, and use those references to support those statements. I'm going to drop the 'less critical' evaluation (sounds like original research) and simply represent what it says. Ranze (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ranze I see that you've changed the paragraph to say that avfm participated in a Huffpost Live segment and that the site was once blacklisted by Symantec. The blacklisting received very little coverage and only lasted a short time so its inclusion is WP:UNDUE.

Just because the site was once featured in a video discussion doesn't mean that this fact should be included in the article, and to do so is WP:OR. The video itself is a primary source for the video segment and in order to include something in the article, it must be discussed in a reliable secondary source - in other words, if there's an article discussing that people from the site were featured in the segment then it could be included. Primary sources can generally only be used in addition to secondary sources; please review WP:PRIMARY. Ca2james (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see WP:BALASPS. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mkay, well I figured it was worthwhile to try and salvage something when work was put into defining the reference, is anything notable in those 2? The Symantec-censorship seemed like a critical event, however short it was, since it shows the ability of opposition (presumably SPLC) to influence media moguls. I did not want to watch that laggy video interview again, keeps crashing me, does anyone recall any notable soundbites from it about the site? Ranze (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no "opposition", I imagine most people find MRAs to be a weird internet oddity at best --5.81.50.152 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Misogynist?

User:2605:6000:6FC0:5:606E:7F5C:6BE:A961 wants to label the purpose of the group as Misogynist. I reverted the addition for a second time. this label may or may not be accurate, but doesn't seem appropriate to put as a "purpose". Critics should not have the freedom to define the purpose of an organization. As a compromise I put the link in A_Voice_for_Men#Criticisms. This statement seems sufficient to satisfy a "balance" this hexidecimal loving editor desires. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2012 it was labeled a misogynist organization by The Southern Poverty Law Center.

ref: "Misogyny: The Sites". SPLC. Spring 2012.

Unfortunately, it isn't labeled a misogynist organization by the SPLC. The only section which talks about misogyny is the opening, and the sentence reads "Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express." Unfortunately almost all is not the same as all, so we cannot say which sites they are labeling as having misogynistic attacks. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you reword it to be accurate to how you interpret it. Criticisms can say more about the critic than their target, and I don't think it is harmful to know who your critics are. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

About the only thing the article says about AVFM specifically is that it is essentially a mouth piece for Paul Elam, almost everything else are select quotes from Paul from the website. So in essence, I don't think it says anything. At least not anything useful for an article on AVFM. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Mark Potok said to BuzzFeed: "'The claim that Elam and his friends are merely trying to have a conversation about the rights of men in modern society is bogus. What it's really about is the defamation of women as a group; that's called misogyny,' said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has described AVFM as part of a network of 'misogynists' and 'women haters.'" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've followed the above links and found nothing that would make claims about AVfM eligible to WP:ASSERT. Rhoark (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ASSERT is relevant to this text. The text currently reads "and its content has been described as misogynistic" - whereas WP:ASSERT would discourage text like "its content is misogynistic". That AVFM has been described as misogynistic is both notable (in terms of coverage in RS) and factual. The last sentence of ASSERT reads "A simple formulation is to assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves." - the text currently includes "facts about opinions". PearlSt82 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This thread was in response to an editor adding a claim without attribution that the purpose of AVfM is misogyny. Rhoark (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Kyohyi's removal of the SPLC description of AVFM as misogynistic and his claim in the edit summary. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)

My removal was based off of what the source used in the edit said and did not say. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment is based on Potok and the SPLC's subsequent clarification if what they said. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My bologna has a first name; it's Oscar. Rhoark (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Content

Hello! Recently a very large amount of content has been removed from the page due to concerns it might violate our BLP policies. Fortunately, articles about companies do not really fall under BLP, and as such we don't need to worry about that- we should just write what the reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPGROUP. Most seriously note that your revert restored the following text How Men's Rights Leader Paul Elam Turned Being A Deadbeat Dad Into A Moneymaking Movement, sourced to buzzfeed. I have reverted per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note also that this article is under Discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. It's rarely appropriate to wholesale revert multiple, independent edits. If you have issues with the existing text please discuss here. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How Men's Rights Leader Paul Elam Turned Being A Deadbeat Dad Into A Moneymaking Movement is the name of the BuzzFeed article. It's not a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice. BuzzFeed is, like it or not, still considered a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that's the title, not a statement. It's text nonetheless was restored with this revert. Buzzfeed in any case and especially as a sole source is unquestionably insufficient for BLP statements. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is questionable, since I'm questioning it: What is your basis for making that claim? How is it not a WP:RS? Some of the supported claims are BLP, but not all of them. Also, although you may already know this, this article is not under WP:3RR, it's under WP:1RR per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading up on the pages you linked, it appears that the 1RR restriction for MRA related pages expired on October 27th of 2014. Is there a different specific restriction you were referring to? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh so it has, I stand corrected. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1RR is indefinitely in effect I thought? PearlSt82 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction was for a limited time, and it ran out back on October 27th of last year. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You've cited WP:BLPGROUP to justify your continued deletion of material. What particular case-by-case justification do you use for applying BLP to this group? It certainly can't be due to its size- it's billed in our article as the 'largest and most influential men's rights site.' I certainly don't think BLP applies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two organizations discussed in this article. AVFM the website, and AVFM the LLC. While AVFM the LLC hosts AVFM the website they aren't the same thing. A similar comparison (though on a much larger scale) could be made between the WMF and Misplaced Pages. Most of the content in this article is about AVFM the website, which I think is large enough to fall outside BLPGROUP. However, AVFM the LLC, cannot be differentiated from Paul Elam, which would make such content fall under WP:BLPGROUP. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

AVFM can most certainly be differentiated from Paul Elam. AVFM is a website with hundreds of contributors and dozens of volunteers. Elam is the founder who sometimes contributes content. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kyohyi highlights the relevant distinction: comments about the company or the content produced by the company, to which WP:BLPGROUP applies (from policy: "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group"), and comments about the content of the forums, to which WP:BLPGROUP does not apply.

Content in the Criticisms section relating to the company was restored with your revert. Content in the intro relating to Paul Elam (specifically the title of the sourced article) violates BLP directly and was also restored by it. WP:BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia including article talk pages and the References section of an article. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your two assumptions are a) that the sources you deleted do not satisfy BLP, and b) that this article is a BLP. Both assumptions are obviously wrong. Dozens of reliable secondary sources have reported the SPLC's description of AVFM. The BuzzFeed article and Dun & Bradstreet database are perfectly acceptable RS, especially for uncontroversial and easily verifiable claims such as the one about AVFM's online store. Moreover, this is clearly not a BLP. It's the most popular men's rights website with many, many contributors and volunteers. So far you have edit-warred against several editors to remove reliably sourced content, that is, you edited tendentiously. I suggest that you self-revert ASAP because, as you know, men's rights related pages are on article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• See this discussion on the RS noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Buzzfeed.2C_Mother_Jones_for_BLP.27s.. The BuzzFeed article is a perfectly acceptable source even if this were a BLP, which it isn't. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The RS discussion is relevant but inconclusive, I would be happy to continue it. AVFM the LLC has a single employee: Paul Elam (per sources.) You've restored BLPGROUP content relating to the company. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE consensus is required to restore BLP content. As there is no consensus yet I have reverted your restoration. Please do not restore again without consensus. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The RS discussion was conclusive in that the BuzzFeed and Mother Jones sources are reliable sources for this article even if it were a BLP. The only editors who disagreed was Kyohyi. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am once again reverting this deletion of content. A) Article is talking about a website, not a living person. B) Sources are BLP compliant even if our BLP policies were to be applied, meaning that their use as a source is fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. José Antonio Zapato seems to suggest that BLP applies to the website because the many activists who write and work for the website aren't officially employed by the website. So by that logic, any statement about the website is indistinguishable from a statement about the one person who actually gets paid. Sorry, but this line of reasoning is unconvincing (to put it very mildly). But even if it made any sense to assume that BLP applies here, the sources are, as you said, BLP compliant. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Using the name of the article as an argument against its inclusion is almost nonsensical in this case. Should we call it "article name redacted"? I can see some argument that this could devolve into a bash Elam fest (although I don't think we're there yet) but that's not a license to remove all critical commentary against the whole website. For example, the SPLC stuff has also been corroborated by multiple secondary sources, such as Time, so its removal seems especially flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note (in case you missed the little notice at the top of the page like I did): José Antonio Zapato has started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The blanking, which I don't agree with, does suggest some some changes that should be made. I don't think Chill is a great source, although its only statement is uncontroversial. The SPLC stuff seems too long for just primary sources, and the quotes seem a bit cherry-picked, since they are about a larger internet phenomenon. Even with the Time source, it should be folded into the controversy section (which should be better named, per WP:CSECTION). The bit about the Honey Badger incident is totally lacking enough context to be informative. Would anyone not already following the incident have a clue what that's about? The Mary Sue may be an RS (I think so, anyway) but the incident has nothing to do with SPLC and seems shoehorned. "Critics of the site believe" is kind of a WP:WEASEL phrase, and clearly attributing the criticisms would be better. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of information about the Honey Badgers (I don't believe it is at all related to the SPLC listing) would be good, and I also agree with more strongly attributing criticism- something like 'X writer for Y source' or 'writers from ABC sources have characterised...'. As to the quotes: We can probably rewrite them in plain English without quotes. I believe it's only necessary to specifically quote them if they've come under specific criticism from another source because of them.

Perhaps we could start a 'Beliefs' section which shows the most strongly representative beliefs the site's contributors hold (changing custody laws, anti-feminism, role of women etc)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have again reverted per BLP policy. There is a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Even temporary inclusion of noncomplaint BLP content harms the subject and is a liability to wikipedia. Temporary exclusion of the content harms no one. Please allow the discussion on BLPN to conclude. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I must disagree. Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing is absolutely harmful. It harms the project's integrity, and it undermines the work of editors who are trying to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I made some of the edits I talked about above, but they were EC'd. Rather than play edit war games, I dumped them in User:Grayfell/sandbox for now. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Ok, I've fully-protected this page for three days, as this dispute has been rumbling on for a week now. Please continue to discuss this here until you come to some sort of consensus, then request any admin to unprot the page - Alison 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hey! So I thought we should have a section to discuss changes that could be made to the article once protection has expired. I'm assuming we're going to be restoring the version that does not have significant swathes of content removed by IPs.

• Separate history and activity?
• We should probably rephrase the origins of the site- don't just say that the site was established at some time and argued against X, we should clearly establish that the site was established to argue against X or in response to X.
• Expanding or removing the 'Honey Badgers' section. We have an official statement from the Calgary Expo and reporting thereon to use if we'd like to expand it. I'd lean towards expanding it, given the strong ties between the two subjects and that we don't have a separate Honey Badgers article.
• We should source every statement in criticisms- we cannot just state 'critics of the site believe'. This goes for 'finances have been described as murky' too, in that we should say who described it as such.
• In criticisms, we can't have the synthesis of 'Paul Elam said this about donations, but later said this about donations'. We should either include either that Paul Elam has refused to state how donations are spent or (preferably) that Paul Elam has stated that donations go to his pocket.

Thoughts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops- sorry, missed the proposed changes by Grayfell. Sorry about that. I think those proposed changes also have a great deal of sense to them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My sandboxed changes mostly match your proposals. I think the "donations go right into my pocket" line should probably be cut. Without additional sources that are more specific about the finances of the site, it's taking as literal something that is open to interpretation. The money thing is a big source of speculation, but I haven't seen anything really solid on it. I also haven't seen any reliable sources about the Honey Badger thing other than the one Calgary Expo expulsion, so any such section would probably be pretty small. Other than that, I agree with all of those suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This Vice article might be a good source if we agree to expand on the Honey Badgers (beyond the incident at the Calgary Expo.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good find. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We should try to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about the site rather than repeat blindly what AVFM says about itself. For example, AVFM wants people to believe that it specializes in "criticism of feminism". But AVFM isn't "critical of feminism", it is antifeminist. There's a clear difference between being critical of feminism and being anti-feminist. Radical feminists are critical of liberal feminists, black feminists and lesbian feminists criticize mainstream feminists, Muslim feminists are critical of Western feminists, most feminists are critical of co-called "third-wave" feminism, and so forth. Feminism and criticism of feminism aren't mutually exclusive, and frequently criticism of feminism comes from within feminism. But antifeminism is the rejection of the most basic feminist principles and that is precisely what AVFM does according to reliable sources (e.g., ). Considering that AVFM is part of the larger men's rights movement which developed as an antifeminist backlash, it's disingenuous to pretend that AVFM is just "critical of" rather than opposed to feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Grayfell: It's not just the BuzzFeed article that points out that the donations don't go to the intended causes, be it extra security to protect activists from phony feminist threats or services for abused men. For example, And donations to it don't go to fighting violence at all... . The questions seem to have become so loud that the AVFM founder responded to them in an article titled C'mon, Paul, What Do You Do With the Money?, stating "Every dollar donated goes right into my pocket." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/18 December 2013
• Accepted AfC submissions
• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• High-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles with connected contributors