Talk:Honey badger (men's rights)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizing this article[edit]

So, my last five articles have been about some pretty inspirational women: a climate activist; a model, fighter, and body positivity advocate; a young girl who competes in a mostly adult male card game; a successful author who teaches in prisons and battles her own alcoholism; a young girl who runs a multi-million dollar company. These are also strong women, also advocates and activists, but ... in a somewhat different way.

Questions about organizing this article:

1. Should this be (1a) one article, or (1b) three (or more) articles? Honestly, I'm tempted to keep it one, because most of the best sources treat them as a group. These women did often or even mostly work together, and especially most of the best sources aren't about each of these women individually, they're about "the women of the men's rights movement". That said, they are individuals, and though Straughan and Tieman founded the Honey Badger Brigade website and podcase, Bloomfield didn't, though she did contribute, and was part of the origin of the name. We could even do it as (1c) one large article about the movement, and individual articles about Bloomfield, Straughan, and Tieman, though each of the three would not be very large. Or (1d) two articles: Bloomfield separately, and Straughan/Tieman as Honey Badger Brigade.

2. If we have the overall article (options 1a or 1c), what should we call it? Most of the sources that write about the subjects as a group do mention the name "Honey Badgers" and several even use it as their title. I see: (2a) Honey Badgers, as the most name-like name. But it could cause confusion with the singular animal. Though it is a red link now. (2b) Something like Honey Badgers (men's rights), or even Honey Badgers (men's rights movement), and make Honey Badgers into a disambiguation page ... even though this is the only use as such so far, and Honey badger (disambiguation) only has singular uses except for Laredo Honey Badgers, 8 sentences about a soccer team that never actually played. (2c) Women of the Men's Rights Movement, which is kind of long and clunky, but does cover it.

3. Should we leave out writing about Bloomfield altogether? Since she took down her individual site due to threats and doesn't publish any more? She does seem quite notable historically, appears prominently in the best sources, and has arguably more coverage than any of the others here, so I do want to leave her in, but the option should be considered. Another option is to email her (you can find her real name on the web, though I'm not putting it in the article) and see whether she objects. --GRuban (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do we leave out the women who haven't explicitly been named Honey Badgers? I'm putting them in because the main articles about the Honey Badgers do list multiple of them, alongside, so I think we should too, but I'm willing to hear alternate opinions.

5. I like the image of Straughan, and can get a small, but not ridiculously poor, image of Tieman, from a screenshot from the Creative Commons video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw_CTpDVoO0?t=249 but probably won't be able to get much for Bloomfield, for obvious reasons. Once we decide on the above issues, I'll write the HBB directly, and ask whether would be able to release better images. A surprising amount of the time article subjects are willing to release images like that, though I can't count on it. I can even write Bloomfield (as above). Any opinions on whether I should go with the Tieman screenshot if I don't get better, and whether I should write Bloomfield?

6. Anything else?

@GorillaWarfare, The Vintage Feminist, and Psiĥedelisto: I'm asking the three of you because you're all excellent editors, I have worked to various extents with each of you, and suspect you may have information and an opinion on the subject, "the manosphere", such as it is. --GRuban (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Sorry for the delay in replying, I've had some personal issues (deactivated my Twitter to get a much needed break from it). Here are my thoughts: I don't agree with the way this article is laid out, as it seemed to me at first that Honey Badgers is an actual organization all these women are members of; this seems not to be the case, though you do mention the Honey Badger Brigade, which seems to be an organization. I would consider two articles: one named Honey Badger (men's rights activism) and another named List of notable Honey Badgers, from which some of the women can be split off from in future should they become independently notable. I don't think Bloomfield should be left out, she's historically important as you say. I knew of her even before reading your work. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts of the current article would go into which of the articles you suggest? --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I would say one article.
2. Honey Badgers (men's rights group), as I do not think they are big enough to be seen as a 'movement' in their own right but Honey Badgers (men's rights) seems a bit abrupt, and then - as you have suggested - a Honey badger (disambiguation).
3. I would include Bloomfield as per WP:UNCENSORED, as long as the information is accurate there should be no problem. I do not see any reason why you have to contact her either when talks she gave like How Feminism Infantilizes Women are still out there to view.
4. Other Honey Badgers should literally be a list, I would personally keep them in the same article.
5. I am not well up on images but the logo for Honey Badgers ought to be fair use.
Other: You might be interested in comments by Mike Buchanan about Straughan (17 mins 18 secs in) 26 May 2020: Mike Buchanan on the future of the party and Straughan's own speech Toxic Femininity --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, The Vintage Feminist, and Psiĥedelisto: Thanks for the feedback! I also emailed Tieman and Straughan, the former of whom wrote back. She agreed I shouldn't bother Bloomfield, and said that there were things that she wanted to change, but was disappointed that I asked for sources from the mainstream media rather than movement sites (did you know that AVfM is on the blacklist? I can't even link to it), so didn't specify very much of what that would be, maybe she will.

  • I see I should make the term singular, to emphasize that it's not really an organization. (Honestly, I could just make it "Female men's rights activist" or something, but then it becomes so much more vague whom to focus on, and it's a cool term.) I know, Vintage Feminist, you specifically said (men's rights) seems abrupt, but I don't want (group), only Tieman and Straughan are part of the formal group, this is more of a concept with a cute name. Do you, or other people, prefer (men's rights activist)?
  • I will include Bloomfield, since you both agree, and Tieman didn't specifically object. (She did think I could leave out Edwards, saying she left the movement, but wasn't quite specific; if she writes back with more details, maybe I will, as Edwards only gets one line anyway.)
  • I will keep one article for now; maybe we'll split if we get more info.
  • I am reasonably well up on images, and though we could possibly use the logo as fair use if it were about the Honey Badger Brigade, that's less justified if it's about the term/concept. I still have some hopes of maybe Tieman releasing more images completely. I'm slightly worried about the Expo logo image; it's certainly marked released, but I am not completely sure the photographer had the rights to release it. Maybe will look into.
  • I noticed the transition from the lede to the sections on individual people seemed abrupt so I added a first section about the Men's right movement or Women in the men's right movement, that talks a bit about movement general history and a bit about women in it. Comments appreciated; for example, should I reduce the part about general movement history that isn't about women specifically? Should I add a bit more about what the movement stands for in one place (right now there are bits here and there in individual sections)?
  • The lede now seems a bit short compared to the rest of the article; any suggestions on what could be added, or is it fine as is?

I'll reach out to Straughan and Tieman one more time, but barring that or your feedback, I'm pretty ready to push it live. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by GRuban (talk). Self-nominated at 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 4 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Honey Badger (men's rights) → Honey Badger – Unnecessary bracketed (parenthetical) disambiguation. Disambiguation from Honey badger is already covered by WP:DIFFCAPS. If Honey Badger redirects here, why should we have the extra "(men's rights)" qualifier? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 13 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Honey badger (men's rights) per discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Badger (men's rights) → Honey badger (activism) – As per the discussion in the recently closed RM (which proposed to remove the disambiguation term entirely), this is not a proper noun. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is this article notable?[edit]

As far as I can tell the term "honey badger" really isn't used much, and even if it is, the men's rights movement as a whole is a fringe movement which doesn't need multiple articles. The lede can just be put somewhere into "men's rights movement," the history can also be merged into the "Movement" section, and then the subsections on individual people can be put into the "Prominent men's rights activists" section. PBZE (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article needlessly restates content from the men's rights article. Female men's rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. The women profiled in this article can be merged into the "prominent men's rights activists". I am not convinced that any of them are notable or prominent outside of the men's rights community. Mo Billings (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is rather a large article, and the term is used quite prominently by most the rather many references, even if I do say so myself. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. The merge discussion is here. Mo Billings (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antifeminism page: avoiding edit war[edit]

I have been editing the antifeminism page as it seems to me slanted to the point of being nearly vertical. My first edit was quickly reverted. I wrote the reverting editor here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir?markasread=211695425&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Reversion_of_antifeminism_page%3A_specific_and_general_problems (scroll down to “reversion of anti-feminism page” for our heated discussion). I am struggling to remain impartial and calm, and yet accomplish some kind of improvement of the article toward a true reflection of what anti-feminism means as a view held by individuals both living and dead.

Anyone who feels so motivated: please review the edits and help me get them to an “acceptable” level that might stick around for a little while.

Thanks, Dp Destrypants (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources tags[edit]

@David Gerard: In this edit you added two sources tags to the top of the article, one that some of the sources aren't reliable, and another that the article relies too much on primary sources. Could you please be specific which you mean for each, and what you propose so we can work towards fixing that? --GRuban (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are too many cites to primary sources - and they're often used to do WP:SYNTH, where claims are synthesised from primary sources and then stated in wiki voice, rather than citing a reliable secondary source that states the claim - and that the article uses many sources that do not pass WP:RS, some of which are even specifically cited as generally unreliable sources on WP:RSP. The fix would be to rewrite the article to remove them - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where exactly do you see the primary sources being often used to do WP:SYNTH? --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: Sorry, where exactly do you see the primary sources being used to do WP:SYNTH? --GRuban (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks since my question, and ten days since you were pinged, and you aren't responding, so I have to assume you don't actually see any primary sources being used to do WP:SYNTH, so will remove that tag. --GRuban (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honey_badger_(men%27s_rights)&oldid=1212836696"