Content deleted Content added
|
Line 402:
::: I was discussing your claims, which are based on feminist literature and scholars.
::: Some academic fields are bifurcated into competing paradigms. For example, economics has been split between Marxist and capitalist scholars (well, perhaps moreso in the past than now). Imagine a WP article on capitalism that primarily cited Marxist scholars while marginalizing the work of free market scholars as "not RS." (Or vice-versa.) It is an analogy with some passing relevance here. To wit: the problems of using primarily feminist scholarship to define men's rights, and the MRM, has been broached many times, by many editors, on these (23 archived and counting) Talk pages... [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills|talk]]) 04:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Better analogy, imagine an article about Evolution that gave equal weight to creationist and Darwinist views. Also the fact that you or the men's rights movement consider particular scholars to be Marxists and therefore biased does not make that a fact.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: ...er, worse analogy. Science articles don't have to give equal weight to non-science viewpoints (or vice-versa). This is not a science article, it is an article about politics. Re the Marxism/capitalism issue -- you lost me. Most Marxist or free market economists self-identify as such -- as do most feminist and masculinist/MRM scholars. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills|talk]]) 05:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
== Lede ==
|
|||