This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Australia: Education Low‑importance Michael Flood is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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.

Archives

Archive 1

(Adding this back from the archive in order to allow Dr. Flood to elaborate and provide possible further sources about his views on men's/father's rights groups, and to allow other editors to read and discuss this material. These issues were raised on this talk section only days ago so and it is premature to archive them)

Below is a direct quote of a speech given (and subsequently circulated) by Dr. Flood in which he encourages feminists and mother's rights activists to actively work against fathers who want to be fathers and be involved with thier children. The entire speech can be read here

The following is a quote of Michael Flood's speech.

[Start quote]
The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers' rights backlash.

Discredit fathers' rights groups. Emphasise that they;

-Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
-Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
-Do nothing to increase men's actual share of childcare / parenting or men's positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
-Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
-Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
-Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
-Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
-Build on men's desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
-Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men's / fathers' networks and groups.

-`Speaking as a father…'

Tell women's stories

-Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.

In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.

(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women's (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )

Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.
[end quote]

Thought the above might be useful material for those trying to understand more about Flood's father-freindly views. Again, for those who wish to read the entire speech click here

Cheers 121.222.152.149 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood again. True, I've been highly critical of the agendas of fathers' rights groups. And I think they do little to actually help separated fathers maintain positive relationships with their children (and their children's mothers). At the same time, I have been a passionate promoter of fathers' positive involvement in children's lives. See for example http://www.xyonline.net/content/promoting-positive-roles-fathers. Best wishes, michael Michael Flood (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I'm trying to understand your stated desire (in your writings) to promote a diversity of 'masculinities', ie. the proposal that there are or should be numerous schemas of masculinity recognised. But then you seem to promote the extreme contrary view by insisting that there exist no diversity of masculinities inside men's/father's rights collectives, and that a diversity of masculinities exists only outside these groups in the thinking of pro-feminist persons and groups. You seem to suggest that such men represent a singular (stereo) type. I know a number of men who belong to fathers or men's rights collectives (although I dont belong to such groups myself) and can say these men hold a variety of views and exemplify a panopoly of diverse masculinities, ie. they are not all domineering violent patriarchal oppressors- the strereotype you offer for all men belonging to such groups. The fact that you say above that all dads belonging to fathers rights groups "are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children" is an extraordinary monocular stance, but one which must stay on the record whilst you hold to it. This anyway is not a place to question your views but merely to clarify and record them as in the above quote, for the purpose of accurately representing your publicised beliefs. 121.222.152.149 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage Dr. Flood to provide further links to his relevant criticisms of fathers/men's groups in order that editors here may gain a balanced sense of his views, which can be incorporated into the entry in a balanced way if useful. I understand there exist several published papers by Dr. Flood criticising father's and men's rights groups generally? Please point us to them or tell me where they can be found and I will post the links here. 121.222.152.149 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be added here as they turn up. Here are a few of Dr. Flood's recently posted criticisms:

Judging by the sheer volume of criticism above (and this is only a small portion) I believe this can be counted as a cornerstone of Flood's work.

121.222.152.149 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work. It's very clear that criticism of father's rights groups is one of his main activities. I'd encourage peopl to incorporate this content into the article. A clear breach of NPOV to not have this mentioned.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a much needed POV tag. We can't simply remove every single last trace of criticism and controversy from articles simply due to the presence of the subject being here. Flood is cited all over Wikipedia attacking fathers rights groups, yet his own article doesn't' even hint at his views.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the other articles here on Wikipedia to which you are referring, unfortunately. Could you share (on this talk page) some of the reliable sources indicating that the subject of this article "attacks" fathers' rights groups? That'll be critical to moving forward on addressing the concerns you have with the neutrality of the article. Thanks! jæs (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good few articles with attacks or criticism. note that his favourite groups to attack are perhaps father's rights groups, but to be strictly accurate he also attacks' men's rights groups too, and men's rights enthusiasts and criticises general pro equality for men campaigns too.

• Article states that Flood beleives "supporters of shared parenting use it only as a symbolic issue related to "rights", "equality", and "fairness" and that the father's rights movement is not actually interested in the shared care of their children or the children's wishes, adding that fathers’ rights groups have advocated policies and strategies which are harmful to mothers and children" [1], (also listed specifically as a notable comentator in the article)[2],
• Accusing men's rights groups of being liars [3]
• "Critics such as Michael Flood accuse men's right enthusiasts of misrepresenting male violence or statistics about domestic violence." [4]
• Suggesting misandry isn't as serious as misogyny [5]
• Coverage of his campaign against having an International Men's Day (he's in favour of an International Women's' Day though of course) [6]

For someone to constantly attack such groups and for it not to be mentioned here really isn't appropriate. As for COI editors, they're listed at the top of this page. Finally, there's also the more general issue with having someone who's constantly referenced on Wikipedia having basically a stub for their article (albeit with a decent bibliography).--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In any case I also note that you have attributed to Flood at least one comment that he didn't actually even make ("Suggesting misandry isn't as serious as misogyny" [7])

Yes, Dr. Flood has a conflict of interest, of which he was long ago aware.[8] However, he has not edited this article for more than 18 months, and when he did, his edits, which consisted of removing poorly sourced material given undue weight, were determined to be appropriate following a posting at the biographies of living people noticeboard. Once again, either please provide diffs for your claim above, now specified as relating to Dr. Flood, that he has "removed every single last trace of criticism and controversy regarding their work", or retract it immediately. I notice you have already been warned for making breaching BLP policy on talkpages regarding this man. --Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've changed the text as obviously there are various different people removing the content, thanks for point that out, my point was more that Flood was mentioning taking legal advice etc [9], which some people may have thought was a legal threat. Yes Wikipedia isn't a reliable source but it indicates such material is of note. This article needs to be expanded and balance needs to be added. At the very least we should add some quotes similar to those used elsewhere on Wikipedia just so people can understand Flood's views.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also you're completely wrong about Flood, he appears to have multiple accounts and was editing this page within the last 12 months.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Once again, diffs please. Note that he's allowed to edit this talkpage as much as he wants. In fact it's what we encourage article subjects to do. WP:AUTO#IFEXIST.--Slp1 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not retracted your remarks about Flood. I repeat. Substantiate your allegations or retract them. This is a BLP matter. Slp1 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have done something to remediate the problem. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please provide sources for all this criticism and controversy from reliable secondary sources. Also, please also back up your claims about COI editors who you state have deleted this criticism. With diffs, please. These are very serious accusations, and as you no doubt know, require evidence per no personal attacks. --Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the COI edit by Flood [10] Some of the deletion is legitimate and it appears he was to some extent trying to deal with an article containing too much criticism/controversy, but I don't' see much left after that deletion tbh, and it all appears to be well sourced to me. Much of it quotes Flood's own work. I have most concern about the deletion of the first and perhaps second paragraphs there. As for the misandry/misogyn quote, that's the impression I got when reading the whole section from his encyclopaedia, of which that quote is a part--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned, the removal of this material (in July 2009!) was extensively discussed at the time and found to be appropriate by a consensus following a BLPN posting. See the talkpage archive. If you want to add some more material, please suggest some reliable sources, as you have been requested.Slp1 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For quoting Flood I'd say it was extremely reliable to quote his own work. People have already kindly provided these sources above, that was the catalyst for this whole section, I expect content from any one of them may be of use, though haven't read them all. I could add even more later perhaps.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OR especially WP:PSTS, in particular about how we need to focus on secondary sources, not primary sources such as Flood's work. If all you want included is that Flood has researched and critiqued the men's and fathers' rights movement, I can't imagine that will be problem. There are multiple sources [11][12][13]. However, that's not a question of NPOV, but of completedness. You talk about "criticism and controversy" being removed. That is a NPOV issue, but you need to provide some reliable sources that he has actually been subject to criticism or controversy, information that is missing in the article, for the tag to remain. --Slp1 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know we focus on secondary sources, what I object to is the refusal so far to use any quotes or primary sources whatsoever. I've highlighted multiple problems here, there's very much a blurring between NPOV and completedness in this case, I believe the two are inextricably linked here. I don't really mind which of the problem are sorted out, just as long as the article doesn't remain in it's current state. If we don't address some of these omissions we'll just get more and more people posting here wondering why there's no information on the key (or at least most well known) area of Flood's work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not highlighted multiple problems. You have made a number unsubstantiated allegations, including ones that violated BLP; and each one has turned out to be unproven or erroneous, including as it happens the claim that there has been "a refusal to use any quotes or primary sources whatsoever".

Since no reliable sources have been provided to show that this article is not of NPOV, despite the requests from two editors, I'm removing the tag. I'll look to see if a brief expansion is warranted based on the reliable sources I found. --Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:Slp1. Without reliable secondary sources, the "problems" you believe you have highlighted are nothing more than your opinion, your interpretation of Flood's work — in Wikipedia terms, original research. If you can find or produce reliable sources agreeing with some of your allegations, you may have a case. Otherwise, as pointed out, your concerns are unsubstantiated. jæs (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even Slp1 agrees content is missing. Even ignoring everything else the absence of this content alone represents a NPOV issue. Flood himself admits accepts some such criticism is valid. He states "I THINK pro-feminist men (myself included) have been too quick to stereotype as committed woman-haters and sexist dinosaurs all men who raise typical "men's rights" issues. We have been sometimes influenced by the dominant model of oppositional politics, in which all such men are "enemies", to be approached (if at all) with disdain, hostility and self-righteous zeal. We have focused sometimes on the negative and we have attributed motives to men's actions which are not necessarily accurate. Such approaches limit our political effectiveness, making it very difficult for us to reach anyone but the almost-converted." [14]--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that content was missing. You MUST stop these misrepresentations. Cherry picking quotes from Flood's work as a source for "criticism" of him is inappropriate original research.--Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said it was a question of compeltedness and wouldn't' be a problem, that's pretty damn close. I'd appreciate if you'd stop your biased and untruthful summeries of my comments please, they're far worse than anything I've said regarding yourself. I didn't bring it up before as I'm quite tolerant, but given your toned of posting you've forced me into action. Until they're corrected I'll have to ask you to please stay away from my talkpage please as I've had enough of this. Many thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My comments are far worse than your violations of BLP? [15][16]. Good luck with your action, whatever it is. Not sure why I should stay away from your talkpage, since I haven't posted there in months, if ever. Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to stay away form my talkpage please until you retract your comments. I want as little contact with you as possible in future given you attitude towards me at present. Please acknowledge that you understand my request, you will of course be welcome there should any false comments here be retracted. Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood here. I periodically check this entry to see if it’s been vandalised, and noticed this recent discussion. 121.222.152.149 writes that critiques of men’s rights and fathers’ rights “can be counted as a cornerstone of Flood's work”, while Shakehandsman writes that it is “very clear that criticism of father's rights groups is one of his main activities”. Both seem to be advocating that content regarding such critiques be incorporated into the article.

I have no major problem with such an incorporation. It would make the piece more vulnerable to politically motivated editing, but that seems to come with the territory.

However, I do not believe that critiques of men’s rights and fathers’ rights are central to or a cornerstone of my work. My critiques are more visible online than much of my other work, but this reflects the particular dynamics of Wikipedia and other online forums rather than the character of my scholarship itself.

Instead, critiques of men’s rights and fathers’ rights are only one of about five major areas of research in which I’ve engaged. In fact, my research has focused much more on two wider areas: (1) men’s violence against women and its prevention, and more generally, (2) men and masculinities, and men’s roles in gender relations. I’ve also done more work on (3) pornography, (4) heterosexual men’s sexuality, and (5) fathering in general, than I’ve done on men’s rights and father’s rights in particular.

So, if the Wikipedia entry is to include material covering the content of my critiques of men’s rights and fathers’ rights, in the interests of accuracy it should also give weight to the other areas of research which in fact are greater in volume.

Just to show you where my critiques of men’s rights and fathers’ rights fit into my research / scholarship overall, below I’ve provided a thematic list of my publications. You can see that in terms of volume, the material on men’s and fathers’ rights is far less substantial than that on other areas.

Sincerely,

Michael Flood.

In response to M. Flood's own characterization of his collected papers criticizing fathers/men's rights groups as "[not] a cornerstone of my work"(see above), I would suggest this is a misleading mis-characterisation based on the fact of high volume of narrative he has generated on this topic. "Cornerstone" is a metaphor drawn from a building -and buildings clearly have several corners- and in this case his anti men's/father's rights polemic comfortably fits the metaphor of a cornerstone of his work (he even suggests above it is one of only 5 main areas of his work!). Whatever his personal reasons for trying to convince Wikipedia editors that his attacks on fathers/men's rights groups are "less substantial", I would like to point out that he has written at least 9 papers focussing on this subject, including numerous other significant references to the subject scattered througout his other papers in the list of works below, and it is therefore factually described as a significant and voluminous part of his written corpus. However, in stating this I concur that this aspect of his work should perhaps not be elaborated in the main entry; I am in agreement here with Flood that it would incite reactionary editing which would be hard to control. At this point I agree with him it is best to leave the main entry as-is to avoid a public rejoinder. 124.185.207.45 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood here again. The person above says that I've written "at least nine papers" on fathers'/men's rights groups. No, that's wrong. I've written 3 or 4. The further items which this person (or someone) added to the list below are either talks or excepts from those 3 or 4 papers. Their inclusion in the list makes my work on fathers'/men's rights appear to have similar weight to other areas of my work, but that's misleading, as the listings under the other areas *do not* list the many talks, conference papers, and other materials I've produced for each. Instead, in my original version of the thematic list below, I included only my published work. Best wishes, Michael Flood.

Michael- I notice that in dividing your online critiques into "talks" or "papers" you seem to be splitting hairs in order to downplay and distance yourself from your voluminous work speaking against men's and father's rights collectives. Perhaps you could manipulate perception further by saying that your more important papers on this topic were written on parchment, while the less important ones written on papyrus?! Your need to manipulate public perception of your work, particularly here on Wikipedia, amounts to a patently biased point of view (see NPOV) and the archives of this talk page confirm that on several occasions you have secretly edited the entry about yourself in a highly biased manner whilst withholding your identity (which you later admitted), and on one occasion you also threatened to take legal advice about the Wikipedia article if it was not written according to your desired presentation. Shall we settle this issue by quoting your words from above? Ok then, we shall; "men’s rights and fathers’ rights are one of about five major areas of research in which I’ve engaged" Anyone familiar with your writings would agree this is, in your own words, "one of five major areas". 124.187.32.183 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood here again. Actually, the distinction between published works, particularly those in peer-reviewed journals, and other materials (talks, conference presentations, etc.) is fundamental to academia. There's a universal norm in higher education / academia that published works (journal articles, book chapters, and books) have far greater scholarly standing than other forms of output, and this is institutionalised in employment classifications, hiring decisions, and even national assessments of the standing of both individual academics and their departments and institutions such as Australia's 'Excellence in Research for Australia' exercise. So no, I'm not splitting hairs.

In any case, even if we gave equal weight to every form of output, with conference presentations and talks 'counting' for the same as refereed journal articles, my output on the other areas of scholarship I've identified, particularly on men's violence against women and its prevention, would continue to be far greater than my work on men's and fathers' rights.

You write that I "secretly edited the entry about yourself in a highly biased manner whilst withholding your identity". Well, I naively edited the entry without having set up a log-in for myself, and I've learned how to better participate in Wikipedia. I use my full name, and I try to be transparent and accountable.

My not-at-all-hidden agenda here is to have my work represented accurately and fairly. I'm perfectly happy to have my work on men's and fathers' rights included as one of the areas of my scholarship, and it would be inaccurate to represent it as any more than one of the areas on which I conduct research.

Cheers,

Michael Flood.Michael Flood (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

I notice that once again that you are attempting to downplay the extent of your focus on men's and father's rights collectives by appealing to the fact that your published papers on this topic, and your talks on this topic are of a different format. Be that as it may, this fact does not downplay anything. It is patently obvious that you are still concerned with the same topic regardless of whether delivered in a paper or in a talk. So indeed you are splitting hairs on the essential point made by the above editor who suggested this is clearly one of five main areas of your research. Attempting to control perceptions and information about yourself in the face of contrary evidence will meet with limited success on Wikipedia, which I assume you have already discovered in your above-mentioned discussions with legal advice. 123.211.249.110 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood here again. I'm glad we now agree that my work on men's and fathers' rights is one of five or so areas of my research, rather than defining my entire research agenda. You seem to have missed the point about how academic work is judged, and to have ignored my further point that even if we put this aside, the volume of work (talks etc.) I've produced on other topics is far greater than on men's and fathers' rights. I'm proud of the latter work, and just want my work to be fairly represented. I've not bothered to add to the list below the very long list of conference talks etc I've given on the first four areas. But I should point out that at least one of the items you or someone else added to the fathers' rights list - the "myths about custody" one isn't something I've authored. It's not mine.

Cheers, Michael Flood.Michael Flood (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this conversation has defined your work as entirely focused on men's and father's rights collectives- this is an argument you have confabulated in order to further distract from the fact that your focus on men's and father's right's collectives is one of five main areas of your work[17]. You then attempt to distract by the false suggestion that I may have added an article "myths of custody" - as if, anyway, another article were even necessary to prove what is already patent in your written corpus- that you have focused a considerable amount of your work on exposing negative aspects of men's and father's rights collectives. Rather than playing these endles distraction games you would do better to simply admit that you have dedicated a significant amount of work on this subject. Again, I'd like to remind you that this is not a forum which will accept unsourced spin as the basis of the article about you, you can rest assured. Kind regards to you, Michael 124.185.30.220 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He said, 'at least one of the items you or someone else added'; you said 'You then attempt to distract by the false suggestion that I may have added an article'. He said 'you or somebody else' (how would he know without checking who added each reference through the history - who has time for that?). Hardly a distraction. WP:AGF.- MishMich - Talk - 07:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in being named or implied in something that I'm unrelated to, and am happy to put fact to his suggestion. And anyway my main point above was to remind him that, "as if, anyway, another article were even necessary to prove what is already patent in your written corpus- that you have focused a considerable amount of your work on exposing negative aspects of men's and father's rights collectives." Regards 124.185.30.220 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the editor Michael Flood on the issue of what is or isn't a cornerstone of his work, although I realise that it may be the aspect that some people are most critical of. His work seems to focus on men and masculinities in the context of what used to be called gender studies and falls within a sociological framework. His writings have reflected his research into men's groups, but they have also reflected research into other areas, such as male violence, violence against women, HIV/AIDS, pornography, adolescent male use of the internet. Men's groups is one aspect of the subject he specialises in, and he has focused on this, but he has also focused on other areas. To suggest that this one part is more significant than the others is WP:OR, although it might be correct to say that this is the area that has received the most attention and critical response, and therefore the area that people are most aware of. However, in a WP:BLP, we need to focus on what is, not simply reproduce what the perception is through the media. If we did that, then we would get some very odd bibliographies of people who have become unpopular because they have been targets of Fox (for example). If there is a campaign against Flood because of one aspect of his work, then we do need to record that, provided it can be backed up in appropriate sources, but we should not be trying to write his bio in a way that it reflects that campaign or the priorities of that campaign. - MishMich - Talk - 11:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MishMich wrote "To suggest that this one part is more significant than the others is WP:OR". Nobody has said that this part is "more significant", at least not in any of the non-archived posts I can see above, so we don't need to entertain your "more" conjecture further. The only emphasis I made in recent comments was on his own contention that a focus on men's and father's rights is one of five main areas of his work. He has focussed significant attention on this topic in his written corpus. As it was he who made this comment about it being one of five areas I see no reason to debate his word. You need to be careful in adding the word "more" to the word "significant" - ie. his focus on the negative aspects of men's and father's right's collectives need not be "more" significant than other areas of his work in order to remain "significant" in it's detail and volume. My contention in pointing to the considerable amount of work he has devoted to the negative aspects men's and father's rights collectives is firstly to clarify that such a focus (among other foci) exists; it is one which he has admitted. I don't know that this area of his research is subject (in your words) 'to a campaign against him', so I have no knowledge/sources to offer on that point. In fact I would suggest that if it is the case that his work is tied to a compaign against him, that this focus in his work may be best NOT elaborated in the main entry as it may invite disruptive edits, however I'll leave that tangent to others with a greater knowledge and interest in the subject. 124.185.30.220 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I obviously failed to express what I meant. If it is simply that it is significant, and not 'more' significant, as one of five areas, then it should be dealt with no more extensively than the others, otherwise, that is WP:UNDUE. It should not be ignored, and it should not be focused on in a way that might make it appear more significant. - MishMich - Talk - 09:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MishMich wrote "it should be dealt with no more extensively than the others, otherwise, that is WP:UNDUE". Nobody has said that this part of his work should be dealt with "more extensively" than other areas, at least not in any of the non-archived posts I can see above, so we don't need to entertain your newest "more" conjecture further. Various editors above were correctly insisting that, as well as the need to avoid misleading suggestions of this area of his work being more significant than other areas, it is also equally misleading to ignore/downplay the significant attention Flood has devoted to this topic which he qualifies as one of five major areas of his research. So most editors appear to agree on a balanced weight for the five stated areas, and for the need to not ignore/downplay any unpopular aspects of his work where weight is due. However in affirming the existence of this one-of-five major areas of his research as indisputably WP:DUE I have no recommendations for further inclusion or exclusion in the entry at this point. It is enough that we remind editors of his significant work on the subject of -men's rights and father's rights. 60.231.60.90 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Michael Flood (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking notice of this discussion. The key issue here is that we cannot make a determination as to which particular areas of your work are prominent (or not). We depend on reliable sources to make those determinations for us, if they are to be made. So, for example, if a notable publication or journal published a summary of your work along the lines of "Michael Flood has concentrated his research in areas relating to..." then we could include those comments, in one form or another, in the article here. Without those sources, we have to stick to the facts, because to do our own analysis of your work would be original research, which is precluded here by policy. I hope this helps clarify, although looking over the archives, I imagine you may recall this from past instances in which other folks have advocated for various content to be added to your biography here on Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Unbalanced".

As the article stands, the article, though brief, is unbalanced toward presenting a favorable point of view toward Michael Flood and his views. Notably, the article presents him as an "expert" on various topics without establishing any basis for such claims. The article claims he is a researcher on "effects of pornography on men" without establishing whether he has, in fact, published any peer-reviewed piece of original research on the topic at all.

I'll note that there was a section on his controversies vis-a-vis the Men's Right's movement that has been all but removed after his personal intervention here. (And I should also note that no part of WP:BLP should mean that subjects of biographical articles get to step in and pick and choose what content they want in "their" article.) It is likely that the previous section had considerable bias problems, however, balanced and NPOV discussion of Flood's criticism of the MRA movement and their criticisms of him are most certainly warranted. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the bibliography needs a huge trim. Wikipedia biographies are not a place for full CVs or complete biographies, but rather more modest lists of major works. Complete CVs or bibliographies that are hosted offsite can be linked to under External Links. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iamcuriousblue, just take care about WP:BLP - biographies of living people don't include negative information unless extremely well sourced. FYI this policy also covers the talk space--Cailil ^talk 03:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me dangerously close to pitting WP:BLP against WP:NPOV. If there is a lower standard for advocacy of an individuals work and for claims of expertise, this makes BLPs inherently unbalanced, especially concerning somebody who's work is controversial. And as for good sourcing, I hear you, but this should very much be the rule on Wikipedia anyway per WP:VERIFY. Unfortunately, that's often something more seen in the exception rather than the observance. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flood here. Iamcuriousblue writes that "The article claims he is a researcher on "effects of pornography on men" without establishing whether he has, in fact, published any peer-reviewed piece of original research on the topic at all." Well, there are three peer-reviewed pieces listed in the entry itself, including two journal articles. Iamcuriousblue writes that the entry represents me as an 'expert' on various topics, but in fact, the entry merely states that I do research on, and publish papers on, various topics. Whether or not I'm an expert is another question.

As to the issue of controversies regarding my critiques of men's rights movements, the entry devotes only 9 words to these ("men's movements as a backlash..."). The entry neither details nor defends my critique. The entry describes me (rightly) as profeminist, so readers aware of these debates would take as given a men's rights critique of my positions. I think that "balanced and NPOV discussion of Flood's criticism of the MRA movement and their criticisms of him" would have all the problems which have been covered before regarding this entry.

Finally, trim the bibliography as you see fit. It's not a complete list (I've published 24 journal articles, 14 book chapters, 19 research reports, a co-edited encyclopedia, and over 90 other articles), but yes, it seems excessive.

Sincerely, Michael Flood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Flood (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't really see the basis for Iamcuriousblue's claims either. Nowhere in the article does it say that Michael Flood is an expert in anything, nor does it ever claim that he researches the effects of pornography on men, yet Iamcuriousblue presents both of these claims in quotation marks as if they came verbatim from the article. On the issue of Flood being an expert on various subjects, I think the article is actually under-representing his notability on these topics. There are numerous books that refer to Flood as an expert on fatherhood, gender, or sexuality. Even the UN refers to him as an "expert". Regarding criticism of Flood, I'm not aware of the section that Iamcuriousblue is referring to. I looked through the history, but couldn't find anything significant. I found several instances of people adding unsourced or poorly sourced criticism (or obvious original research) in violation of the WP:BLP policy. This material was rightly removed. If there are examples of criticism cited to reliable sources, I don't think there would be any problem including these in the article. Perhaps some examples could be presented. I agree the bibliography is excessive. I'll see about trimming it. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Flood: It looks like culling your bibliography is a somewhat daunting task. Do you have any suggestions for what your most significant works would be? Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, I've trimmed the bibliography, leaving in those works which are recent and of greater academic or scholarly significance in terms of their contribution (content) or their place of publication. By the way, I'm sorry that I'm not very good at following the Wikipedia format for talk. Still learning.Michael Flood (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Flood/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I am Michael Flood. I am frustrated to find that someone has been repeatedly editing this page to claim that I 'oppose sex-positive feminism'. This is simply inaccurate. They cite a presentation of mine in which I am critical of mainstream pornography, but nowhere do I question or reject the tenets of sex-positive feminism. In fact, I support its key assumptions: that sex is innocent until proven guilty, that sex-negativity or erotophobia has a powerful influence on community and political perceptions of sexuality, and that we should support sexual diversity. In response, I have edited the entry to clarify this point.

Last edited at 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article identifies Flood as "an Australian pro-feminist sociologist". Flood may identify himself as pro-feminist, but is that really central to his notability? I'm not sure that labeling academics first of all by their political leanings is helpful to the encyclopedia. Flood's work in pro-feminism is mentioned twice further down in the lead section – for the sake of due weight, I would suggest that that's probably enough. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

* I've removed pro-feminist from the introductory sentence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923000751/http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/05/original-net-nanny-advocate-does-back-flip to http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/05/original-net-nanny-advocate-does-back-flip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]