Talk:The Best Men Can Be

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Best Men Can Be article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Men's Issues

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Repeated removal of important context

You do not need a source to say this ~~campaign~~ advertisement is about promoting positive ethical values among men. That is the basis of the campaign's existence. MOS:LINKS does not outright bar links in quotes, they just have to accurately reflect what the author meant. In addition, the constant removal of a statement from the lead that rebuts criticism of the ad, in my opinion, contradicts WP:LEAD and NPOV; a lead has to summarize the article's entire contents, and we most reflect all viewpoints prominent in reliable sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly conservatives?

The wording of this article greatly disturbs and worries me.

"Having faced wide criticism, mainly from conservatives" - seriously? This is objective writing?

If Wikipedia is starting to be a political forum rather than a source for objective information we are moving in a very bad direction. Wikipedia should NOT be a forum for liberal (or conservative) viewpoints. (And before anyone goes off on me, I'm a Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, the least crazy of the three candidates, which I never thought would be possible......).

If you want to include liberal and conservative responses to the ad in the body of the article, fine, that is appropriate- but to include this leading statement in the introduction to the topic is absolutely disingenuous.

Statement in lead

We have: "The "We Believe" advertisement was the subject of minor controversy". Minor controversy? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK it's a major controversy, with all the main media outlets covering it, some in length. I propose 'minor' be changed to 'major', or at the very least, 'minor' be omitted. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just "subject of controversy"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Removes the subjectivity. Maybe you could change it later (I think you're in the US?) if no one else chips in. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by another editor. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and references forcing conditions on the reader

Perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent, but here goes: in the lead there are a couple of references to Time Magazine (ref 2). When accessing these references, at least from within the European Union, you are taken to an intermediate page which forces you to accept cookie deployment and data transfer conditions that some, maybe many, users would find unacceptable. I, for one, rejected this condition, so I was unable to access the reference. Is there a Wikipedia policy on the use of this type of source? For me, if the source is not immediately accessible without conditions then it should not be used as a source. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Change

What is Cinema of Change, and is it a reliable source? The author is Tobias Deml, so who is he? (Maybe de:Tobias Deml?) The site's about page doesn't fill me with confidence. The currently cited article itself cites Wikipedia a couple of times, making it a WP:CIRC risk. Regardless of how in-depth or interesting a source is, it still needs to be reliable as a baseline. We need a reliable source to demonstrate both that these statistics are correct, and also that they are significant enough to mention at all. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]