This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commmon sense - not needed?
The article says Buchanan says men are "pretty much" "subhuman" - this appears to be (deliberate?) misconstruction of his point - which is that he believes the STATE treats men subhumanly. Whether one agrees or not, some argue that men in 2020 are treated like blacks were treated in 1950 - anyway, the point is he clearly isn't both promoting men's rights while saying he thinks men are subhuman. Then again, the stupidity of this helps show how biased this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.111.148 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Mike Buchanan here. I confirm the above is correct - I have always attributed the statement "men are pretty much subhuman" to the state, but the way it's worded in the entry makes it look like that's my view, which it most definitely isn't. Can it please be amended accordingly? Thanks. 2.26.145.230 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Additional comments re: merger
Moving additional AGF comment into its own section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. (1) J4MB the political party comprises more members and has involvement that is nothing directly connecting to Mike Buchanan. The proposer says that "Buchanan's party is quite small" but misses that the party is not the founder: it is large enough that it is not the same subject. (2) Mike Buchanan has activities unrelated to the political party, which is an entity in itself. (3) It would be bad precedent to merge any established political party with either the founder or its current leader. I don't think this is done with any other party in the world and would make reading about either of them unnecessarily confused and would make searches on them difficult. KarenBrittworth (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi KarenBrittworth, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The result of the merger proposal was to merge as of 2 June 2018 (see Requests answered in June 2018), the discussion was open for six months with a tag directing editors to the discussion at the top of both articles.
- However to address your points:
- As can be seen in this comment I made in September last year the party is actually very small and hasn't run a candidate anywhere since 2015.
- Justice for Men and Boys still works as a re-direct to the section Mike Buchanan (politician)#Justice for Men and Boys where the information has been pasted to.
- As mentioned in point 2. Justice for Men and Boys still works as a re-direct. In the last few months the following have either been deleted or redirected (links are to AfD discussions): Bahujan Azad Party, Party of the Truth, Abul Yatama Party and The Radical Party (UK) so it is not the
only party in the world
to be treated like this and it never happens without discussion and consensus.
- Finally, in regard to your edit to the lead section of the original article about the party diff I am afraid they breach WikiPedia's policy on self-published sources WP:RS/SPS so I have not carried it over to this article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Given your moniker, I think it hardly appropriate for you to be making any decisions about this matter. What is the appeal process, or do I just recreate the page? KarenBrittworth (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Karen, I suggest you read the policy on "edit summaries dos and dont's" (WP:ESDONTS) before you make any more gaffs like this one. If you have a complaint about my user name then check it against the policy on "inappropriate usernames" (WP:IU), if you still think it is inappropriate then the procedure for reporting it can be found at WP:BADNAME. There was a discussion open for six months with a consensus to merge. Any other questions that you have about mergers or anything else can be asked at WP:Teahouse - which I know you have already been invited to by Cordless Larry. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Given your moniker, I think it hardly appropriate for you to be making any decisions about this matter. What is the appeal process, or do I just recreate the page? KarenBrittworth (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
New party name
A quick note to confirm I've let the originator of this page, The Vintage Feminist, know that our party name was changed in agreement with the Electoral Commission from "Justice for Men & Boys" http://j4mb.org.uk to "Children & Family Party" http://cafp.uk in April 2022. Hopefully she or another editor of the page will amend it accordingly. Thanks. Mike Buchanan, party leader. 2.26.145.230 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate assertion
Hi. Near the start of the piece there's this claim:
"He is also claims (sic) to be a media commentator for the men's rights movement though many activists distance themselves from his strident opinions."
I am not aware of any such activists, let alone "many". Can you please either identify them (if they exist) or remove this sentence? Thanks. 2.31.227.105 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done – I've removed the latter part of the sentence since it's unsourced. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks EW. If you or one of your colleagues could spare the time to make some or all of the other corrections and additions I've requested, that would be much appreciated. Best wishes, Mike Buchanan, 79.97.145.129 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested modifications, some due to inaccurate assertions
(Requests from Mike Buchanan [1], party leader.)
The first sentence needs to change to reflect the fact that the political party’s name is now Children & Family Party [2]. Details below.
Campaign for Merit in Business – please add the hyperlink [3].
Children & Family Party – new section required. I’ve already requested (see above) recognition that the party’s name changed in April 2022 to the Children & Family Party [4]. The party’s manifesto for the next UK general election – which must be held by May 2024 at the latest – is here https://cafp.uk/manifesto/. It contains proposals and backgrounds on 20 issues. Mike Buchanan will be the sole candidate and standing in the Bedford constituency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_(UK_Parliament_constituency), a very marginal seat where he’s lived for over 25 years.
“Justice for Men & Boys” section – line starting, “The party issues…”. Firstly, “Lying Feminist of the Month” awards were not restricted to journalists. The awards are no longer issued, but another category was “Gormless Feminist of the Month”.
“Later activities” section – 2016 conference, please add hyperlink [5].
2018 conference – please add the hyperlink [6]. Birmingham City FC claimed it was "misled at the time of booking" but this assertion is untrue, please omit.
2019, Cambridge University. Firstly, please mention that Mike Buchanan and Elizabeth Hobson (the party’s Director of Communications at the time) were at the university to give talks on feminism and men’s rights.
“University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics.” The claim was an outright lie, shamefully reported by The Guardian, a paper which is hostile towards anti-feminists.
The milkshaking incident – a female supporter of the party chased after one of the two milkshakers (a woman) and successfully caught her and recorded the aftermath on her smartphone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5epds6bs4M.
“An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors.” Another claim which was an outright lie, reported by a feminist student website. The truth was that an attendee – previously unknown to us – was assaulted by the protesters.
At the end of the “Later activities” please add that I was the organizer of two further International Conferences on Men’s Issues, held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 conference [7] and 2021 [8]. I am the organizer of an in-person International Conferences on Men’s Issues which will be held in Budapest, Hungary, in 2024.
Thank you. 2.27.146.24 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some of these things would require coverage in independent sources to justify inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Cordless Harry. Two thoughts:
- - surely those things that do NOT require "coverage in independent sources" can be implemented? Obvious examples include the change of party name four months ago, in April 2022.
- - "independent sources" don't provide "coverage" of men's issues or challenge feminist lies and misrepresentations - indeed they're the chief means of delivering them to the public - so it would seem to follow that Wikipedia doesn't either. The pro-feminist bias of the mainstream media, and Wikipedia, is outrageous. In the UK only one in 11 women and one in 25 men self-identify as feminists, according to a survey carried out for the Fawcett Society, a feminist charity, in 2016. Happy to provide a link to that report if you wish. 78.19.233.112 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)
Mike Buchanan is diametrically opposed to MGM. Let it be stated unequivocally. The likes of KlayCax suggesting that use of the term "Male genital mutilation" is POV, then replacing it with "routine circumcision" laughable. This is the same user who in their following edit "clarifies" and expands the abbreviation MGM (reused in a later part of the text) as "genital mutilation" (after deleting the original expansion "Male Genital Mutilation [MGM]" in their previous edit). No KlayCax, it is YOU who is insidiously POV. I'm restoring the facts. Otherwise, bring it, please. Miss Andry (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, really appreciated. 2.26.145.149 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- We can't state that in Wikivoice. It's a violation of WP: NPOV to state as such. While there is a substantial debate in the literature about the ethics of routinely performing it: the overwhelmingly majority of sources don't equivalate the two. Per Martha Nussbaum:
Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision ..."
While routine circumcision might be ethically wrong, Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism or "to right great wrongs." KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)- Mike Buchanan replies:
- "While routine circumcision might be ethically wrong..." MIGHT?!!! For anyone wanting to learn the truth about Male Genital Mutilation, I recommend our 112-video playlist on the subject https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMscr0TpRqgDT--hnKe3XOKXypbM_R2K. 70.188.52.195 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @KlayCax, Spare me that "Wikivoice" claptrap, and fairy-tales about WP neutrality. It's farcical, pretentious, and quite frankly a waste of my time. The quality and nature of this entry alone reeks of misandry and insidious anti-Mike sentiment. But I digress.
- Now, I don't know if you require illustration in crayon to understand the following simple facts: Mike Buchanan protests MGM; MGM is a recognized term; and this entry is NOT about YOUR perspective. Listen, you are free to prefer the silly term "routine circumcision", you are free to consider MGM a "fallacious analogy" to FGM, etc. But the purpose of this article is to accurately document what Mr. Buchanan is about. It not the place to discuss and impose your opinion.
- The only activism being done here are your flimsy attempts to re-word according to feminist consensus. Is quoting Martha Nussbaum (or some random/pompous feminist academic with a clitoris) supposed to mean something to me!? You, my dear, are a funny guy. It might come as a surprise to you, but there are those of us who do not concede to feminist arbitration or gynocentric dictates. Your voices are not the only ones to be heard.
- Bottom line: Unless Wikipedia wishes to censor the term MGM, then IT IS WHAT IT IS -- "Mike Buchanan campaigns against MGM". Those are the facts. Report them; let them be stated accurately and unequivocally. Anything else is re-phrasing according to YOUR POV. Miss Andry (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with KlayCax. I'd advocate for removing the section entirely. Besides citation to Buchanan's own site, there doesn't appear to be much coverage at all of his advocacy in this area. Unless mentioned by other sources, Metro (see WP:RSP) is not reliable or sufficient for demonstrating that his highway obstruction conviction is due either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Buchanan replies:
- There isn't much coverage (in the mainstream media) of anybody's activity in relation to MGM. If "much coverage" in the MSM is a pre-requisite for an entry in Wiikipedia, a huge amount of Wikipedia content should be removed. This seems to me a cynical bid to remove content on MGM, a major issue for the men's rights movement for a long time. The Wikipedia entries on MGM and the men's rights movement MRM is utterly hopeless and misleading, doubtless due to the woeful influence of feminists on Wikipedia. 2.28.183.120 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not right when one side plays the "your definitions do not correspond to my definitions, but my definitions are right" gane, and it's not right when you do it either. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough mainstream coverage to lend weight to the term "male genital mutilation" outside of attribution of quotes. Especially not as a replacement to (routine) circumcision. BlueNoise (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- The term MGM is not a Mike Buchanan invention. It is true that MGM doesn't receive nearly the same mainstream coverage as FGM. But it is also true that MGM is subject to rabid and fanatical opposition by frothing feminists, gynocentrics, religious zealots, practitioners and the rest of the industry that is heavily invested in the human (especially infant) foreskin trade. But the term MGM is STILL used. It even found its way in this 2011 article in the The Guardian (yikes! of all places!) by Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld -- both doctoral students at Oxford University at the time: "If we oppose female genital mutilation, has the time not come for us also to oppose male genital mutilation?". MGM is Mike's stance too. Report it as such, and not what YOU think he should be saying. Miss Andry (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not right when one side plays the "your definitions do not correspond to my definitions, but my definitions are right" gane, and it's not right when you do it either. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough mainstream coverage to lend weight to the term "male genital mutilation" outside of attribution of quotes. Especially not as a replacement to (routine) circumcision. BlueNoise (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)