Talk:Michael Flood

Notable?

What secondary sources attest to the notability of this individual? (See also: Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be that creators of this article have confused notability with notoriety. 124.187.89.37 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? It seems on the surface that Flood is neither, and that the overwhelming majority of material in this article has Flood himself (or the website he owns and operates) as the source. Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline specifically warns against self-published sources. The "reading" section in particular seems a spamming of Flood's self-published articles. I would be inclined to pursue deletion of this article unless it can be shown through reliable third-party sources that significant contributions to his field were made by this individual. Blackworm (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Added neutrality tag since much of the article is a promotion of the work and profile of the subject of the article. There is little external reference to the academic and much self-reference within the article. Additionally, the article is self-justifying, for example, the paragraph dealing with contra-point and criticism to this academic is essentially an exercise in apologetics:

"Some members of men's movements perceive Flood as an anti-masculist or a misandrist as he is highly critical of men's rights[1], and father's rights[2]. However, Flood himself argues that efforts to engage men, whether in violence prevention or gender mainstreaming, must be based on a 'male-positive' commitment to enhancing men's lives. [3] They must be guided by principles of gender equality and social justice, and responsive to diversities among men."

This paragraph cites references but is entirely biased in that it lists criticisms and then apologises for them, thus dismissing other viewpoints rather than offering balanced coverage of them. The article must be rewritten to establish both notability and balanced Point-of-view before removing the neutrality tag. It is by no means clear that this academic has notability. He is referenced by his own material and other material within his geographic region. Much of the article is self-justifying rather than externally supported, and the fact that a user with the same name as the subject of the article appears as a principle editor in the article history does nothing to support the independence of this article. This academic may well be notable, but this needs to be demonstrated in the article in a substantial manner. If the notability of the article cannot be established, there is a wikipedia process to follow. Hybrazil (talk)

The user above confuses the hosting of various publications by Michael Flood on the 'XYonline' site with the actual source of their publication. The vast majority of the pieces listed *have* been published academically - as journal articles or book chapters - and copies of them are available via XYonline.

The material needs to be quoted from its published source. Thus, when the material appears on XYOnline, that is where it is published. Its additional appearance in other places (such as in journals, where that may be the case) is not considered. References quoting from XYOnline, are quoting XYOnline as the source, being the point of publication. This is standard academic practice. If these pieces do appear elsewhere as well, which they may well do, it is appropriate to quote those so that they can be referred to rather than convenience linking them through an intermediary website (in this case, XYOnline). If the above commentator wishes to assert that the material comes from differing sources, then it is appropriate to update the reference tags to reflect those different sources, not to quote a single source then assert that it reflects a diversity of sources. It is also not adequate to assert that XYOnline constitutes an online academic database: it is a themed online magazine based on its previous incarnation as a print magazine and expanded from this point (according to its own description). It is not an accepted academic reference database and must not be treated as such. The original objection remains valid. This issue is dealt with quite clearly in the Wikipedia guidelines on referencing. The article is now better supported than it was, but it is still heavily reliant on self-references due to heavy reliance on XYOnline. On balance, there is no good reason why an article on an academic with an extensive body of work should be so heavily self-referenced. Hybrazil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

As an onlooker I'm curious to see how this unfolds. To date cited material has been placed in the entry, some of it from the Australian Government's ABC programe and other prominant media, and Dr. Flood has (as his White Ribbon Day approaches) scared everyone with mention that he is taking legal advice. The fact is that prominant media have reported he carries out dubious research, or at least has present dubuios recearch to the media about "male violence". I assume editors are aware these citable facts will be reintroduced into the article if they are deleted? 123.211.162.37 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality/Point of View

Regarding the neutrality tag, please refer to my comment above in the Notability section. Hybrazil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Addressing issues

I just spent a little bit going through the article to try to bring it in line with wp:blp, wp:npov, and wp:undue. I think it's a lot closer. Any unsourced controversial content that is reinserted into the article should and will be removed per wp:blp. I tried to maintain a balance between presenting Flood's sourced opinions and the reliably sourced responses where available on a few of the issues. In some cases, it certainly seemed like there was a lot of undue weight placed on certain situations, and I've pared where I could. This is by no means a perfect revision, but I hope it's getting closer to what everyone would agree is a fair and accurate article, and I would be happy to work on any recommendations on how to get us even closer to that point.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing that you do not set out to remove those overriding emphasis(plural) found throughout Dr. flood's works. He places extensive and consistent emphasis on negative male behaviors (demonstrably more frequently than he does male-positive bahaviours) throughout the vast majority of his published papers. On that account you are faced with the decision to either craft a 'nice' mischaracterization in which you tone down his emphasis on negative male behaviour or alternatively you can read all his papers, as I have done, and offer an accurate due-weight portrayal of his concerns about negative male behaviours. If you refuse to acknowledge the heavy weight Dr. Flood places on this aspect of his writing, along with other heavily emphasised subjects such as violence against women, then you are promoting undue weight. I understand Dr. Flood's concerns about attracting negative responses from this part of his work, but to diminish it (or paste it with lipstick) would create a farcical article. 123.211.246.13 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read and make sure that you've understood Wikipedia's policies on undue weight, original research, and biographies of living people before making any further edits to the article. Flood is a respected academic with a wide range of published material, and it is heavily inappropriate that his article is 90% dominated by the disputes some men's rights activist groups appear to have with him.

In terms of appropriate weighting, the article as rewritten by J resulted in the issue getting about the space actually warranted. Any attempt to return it to the huge swathe of the article before is in blatant violation of the above policies, and will not stand in any form.

Beyond this, you need to understand that any negative claim being made about any living person on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to reliable sources. This means, in short, that your views about Flood, or of how you view other men's rights activists as viewing him, cannot be represented in the article unless this can be sourced to reputable responses to his work in published material. Rebecca (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Each point Rebecca has addressed above is important to understand, but I must reiterate that especially important here are wp:or and wp:rs. A significant portion of the article before yesterday relied on sourcing that simply did not support the statements being made. In some cases, it was an issue in which the content of our article here was providing an interpretation or tangential discussion to the actual reliable source. Both of these sorts of situations are unacceptable, most especially in a biography of a living person.

I also think it is clear that you have a very obvious viewpoint with regard to Flood and his work, which brings up important wp:coi issues, made obvious in the extent to which the article was unduly reflecting your viewpoint rather than his. Just as Flood himself should not be editing the article, in fact, neither should you; instead, anyone with an overriding conflict of interest should post their recommendations and suggestions here, on the talk page, and other editors without a conflict of interest can address their concerns with wp:npov in mind.   user:j    (aka justen)   12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but so do you, and so does Rebecca. May I suggest that all three of you (including our anonymous IP friend) leave this one alone due to COI. I don't want to put words in your mouths, but looking through your histories (talk and edits) you all seem to have strong views that you are bringing to this and it would seem prudent to leave it to more objective editors who can bring balance to this. Cudos, by the way, on the edits to correct the self-referencing aspects, I did note your rewrite and felt it was a great improvement, although the article is still heavily self-referencing and I will address that separately. Hybrazil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm sorry, what in my "histories (talk and edits)" leads you to believe that I have a conflict of interest when it comes to Michael Flood? I had never heard of him or his research before coming across the deletion discussion involving this article, and I can't say I wholeheartedly embrace a great deal of his points of view. To be clear, the fact that I'm involved with the article now, with no past personal involvement with this area of research or the particular ideologies involved here, is not a conflict of interest.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation

This section is completely misleading-

In November 2008, several media articles[6][7] reported that a study conducted by Flood had found one in every three boys believed it to be acceptable to physically harm a girl[8][9][10]. The wide public response to the survey contributed to support observing White Ribbon Day, an event advocating an end to violence against women[11]. Several media outlets later corrected their reports to reflect that the study had, in fact, found that one in seven boys believed it to be acceptable to force a girl to have sexual relations[12][13][14], as reflected in the National Crime Prevention report from 2001[15][16][17].

The citations referred strictly to boys thinking it was ok to hit a girl. The original report on which this misinformation was based stated that it was in fact ok for a girl to hit a boy. Therefore the comment about boys thinking it was ok to hit a girl was the mistake, and the citations previously in the article confirmed this. You are now creating false claim by suggesting this mistake was based on some finding that one in seven boys believed it to be acceptable to force a girl to have sexual relations. While this latter finding may be true, it is NOT the source-material of the latter misinformation (which the article now falsely claims). I hope someone actually READS the sources! I've had enough, and leave it to others. 123.211.246.13 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources-

1.[1] Domestic violence on teens AM, ABC News Online, 7pm TV News On Monday November 17, 2008 ABC News carried stories reporting the findings of a study into the impact of violence on young people. The study was commissioned by the White Ribbon Foundation. It reported, in part, that “one in every three boys believe it is not a big deal to hit a girl". The author of the report, Dr Michael Flood, has advised the ABC that this finding was in fact wrong. Dr Flood's team transposed information in compilation of that part of the report. The original report by the National Crime Prevention 2001 study upon which much of the White Ribbon report was is based made no reference to "boys hitting girls" In fact the report referred to "girls hitting boys". As references to this incorrect information formed a significant part of the our online news story, as well as an interview conducted for the AM program. The online news story has been amended accordingly. The AM transcript has been edited and the story audio removed.

2. [2] -Editor's note: This story was amended on December 3, 2008 to acknowledge an error made by the authors of the White Ribbon Foundation report. The original story reported, in part, that "one in every three boys believe it is not a big deal to hit a girl". In fact, the author of the report, Dr Michael Flood, has advised the ABC that this finding was in fact wrong. Dr Flood's team transposed information in compilation of that part of the report. The original report by the National Crime Prevention 2001 study upon which much of the White Ribbon report was is based made no reference to "boys hitting girls" and referred only to "girls hitting boys".

3. [3] The original report: David Indermaur, Young Australians and Domestic Violence, Australian Institute of Criminology, (page 5., 2001) stated: that a significant proportion of young people agree "when a girl hits a guy its no big deal".

123.211.246.13 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we reading the same sources? From Australian ABC News: "A new report has found that nearly one in seven teenage boys think it is OK to make a girl have sex with them."

If I've misread something, I'll be happy to correct it. But, as best as I can tell, the sources clearly indicate the "one in three" fact as it related to physical assault and "one in seven" fact as it related to sexual assault.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Justen, That is a correct finding about one in seven boys thinking its ok to force a girl to have sexual relations. But its a seperate issue and not to be conflated with the above mistake. The sexual finding was not the basis of the statement about boys thinking it ok to hit girls. 123.211.246.13 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is what we can source, not what we believe it to be. I can't find any reliable sourcing indicating this was any sort of controversy for the facts above to be "conflated" with. The report was the story, the error was just a small part of the overall story; the one in seven figure, in the scheme of things, is much more important in those sources than the later corrections. A couple of publications did issue corrections, but none wrote separate stories saying there had been any sort of deliberate campaign to mislead the media... I think the fact there were incorrect media reports is reflected in the article, but the extent to which that is relevant to this article is very limited (again, the issue is wp:undue).   user:j    (aka justen)   14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs clarifying. If I understand this, one of the findings in the report was wrong (because it used data that showed 1 in 3 girls thought hitting a boy was OK as if it was data about boys hitting girls). The media reported on this finding as it was in the report and interviewed Flood. When published Flood pointed out the report was wrong. A media retraction was made based on the error being in the original report, and replaced the item with the details about 1 in 7 boys thinking it was OK to force sex on a woman instead. Whether Flood's comments, seeing he pointed out the error, were in conjunction with the 1 in 7, not the 1 in 3, we will never know, but the article was changed in a way that suggests they were. Is this correct? That is what appears to have happened. Is there some way this can be re-phrased more accurately to show what actually happened? What the original article said. That the person interviewed in the article pointed out it was wrong because... That the article was changed to detail that... and leave the reader to come to their own conclusions through the sources, with us simply documenting what happened? Mish (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just revised the paragraph to try to get the timeline straight, please take a look. Like you said, though, we have to be careful to not draw the conclusions ourselves, but, with that and wp:blp in mind, if there's a better way to phrase it that is reflective of the sourcing we have access to, please feel free to further revise.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have separated out the retraction, and detailed what it said, from the amended reports to more accurately reflect the sources. Part of the problem here seems to be the reporting - White Ribbon did not do a survey, they commissioned secondary research using an existing national crime survey, and released this as a report - as far as I can tell. The problem is the media call the report a survey, when it is a report on an older survey, and they call the survey a report (which would have had a report, but usually subsequent reports drawn from a survey are based on the survey data). I've tried to make it more clear, but the whole thing looks messy. Mish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the whole situation does appear to have been a bit confusing, and I worry about whether or not the space we're dedicating to try to explain the whole damned affair might come across as undue; but, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction. In any event, your most recent revision is much clearer than the best I could come up with, so it's a good thing you tackled that!   user:j    (aka justen)   16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but when the devil is in the detail, it is tricky managing something without expanding it. I didn't add much information, but moved a citation and detailed what the retraction was for. Maintaining NPOV probably overrides UNDUE. Mish (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When they can't be balanced, I agree re: maintaining npov at the expense of undue (although the latter grows out of the former). Although, I should add that I wasn't at all criticizing the extent to which you expanded the section, as I agree you did it as efficiently as possible.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite of entry, July 31 2009

I have reworked the entry in a number of substantial ways. I have trimmed the entry’s overall length, and reworked the entry into a short summary of my work. I have omitted most of the references to publications, as they can be found on my Latrobe University staff page. I’ve removed the material which was / is likely to generate controversy, such as claims about fathers’ rights groups and about pornography. And, in particular, I have also corrected the two problematic emphases in the existing version: (1) Close to half the entry was devoted to discussion of a particular community report I co-authored, focused on incorrect statistics. Yes, two of the statistics in the 50-page report were mistaken, and this was compounded when they were picked up as the focus of media commentary. We acted quickly to correct the error, fixing the report and reissuing it. In any case, these initial errors did not take away from the main messages of the report: that young people are exposed to violence in their families and relationships at disturbingly high levels, that this violence has profound and long-lasting effects, that violence is sustained in part by some young people’s violence-supportive attitudes, that young men show higher violence-supportive attitudes than young women, and that prevention efforts can stop this violence from occurring and continuing. However, the substantial focus in the Wikipedia entry on these errors is misleading in a biographical entry on me. It gives the impression that my work in general is unprofessional and inaccurate, and I suspect that this is the intention of whomever went to the trouble of adding it. Devoting such length to this particular drama is inappropriate in a broader sense too, given that I’ve authored 15 or so research monographs or community reports and a wide range of refereed journal articles. So, I have removed all discussion of this particular report. (2) About one-sixth of the entry was devoted to discussion of an open letter I wrote on International Men’s Day. This was a pretty minor piece of writing, and the entry’s focus on it reflects someone’s interest in IMD rather than its importance to an entry on me. If this material belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs in an entry on IMD itself. I have listed some academic publications available on the Latrobe University website. But I’m happy to trim this list if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael G Flood (talk • contribs) 01:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The length was necessary to ensure neutrality and accuracy. By clipping it too short one way or the other, you lose accuracy and neutrality (both key policies). Mish (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Michael, removing material that has caused public controversy and been recorded in notable news sources amounts to a conflict of interest. Impartial editors already trimmed your entry to make it as noncontroversial as possible while remaining true to the evidence. I realize you may be uncomfortable with some of the mistakes generated by your studies but blanking entire sections of the article is not a reasonable response. 121.222.114.232 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As one of the uninvolved editors who worked on this, we went to some lengths to neutralise the language and stick to the sources. What remained was balanced, to avoid this becoming an attack-page. Simply removing material one is uncomfortable about is just as unacceptable, because that turns it into a soapbox or self-promotion. Please leave the article as is, and if there is anything you wish to challenge in terms of accuracy and reliability, by all means discuss it here with the editors, and we will review the points you make, and edit if/as appropriate. Mish (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice a new editor has suddenly appeared [4] and again deleted portions of the Flood article in the same manner as Flood recently did. I have restored the deleted bulk but am concerned that Flood or this new editor may delete it again. On that basis I hope that impartial editors are presently watching and can oversee alterations to this article such as bulk blanking (I suspect there may be many attempts in the lead up to White Ribbon Day in one week's time). I do not wish to edit the fine detail myself and will leave that for impartial editors. In order to avoid edit wars I recommend that Dr. Flood and the new editor discuss proposed blanking here before going ahead with further edits, as the deleted material was reported in respectable Australian media and has generated much publicity. 121.222.114.232 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) PS. See also [5] 121.222.114.232 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Partial and biased representation

Michael Flood again. I am disappointed to see that people have gone to the trouble of adding in the misleading, partial, and politically biased material I had removed from the entry. (This is a good illustration of the reason why I and others in universities instruct our students not to rely on Wikipedia for their information, and indeed why some penalise students for its use in their essays.) Mish claims that this was to "to ensure neutrality and accuracy". Well, if this is really the editors' intention, then the text also should include detail on the main messages of the report in question, that, as I noted above, young people are exposed to violence in their families and relationships at disturbingly high levels, that this violence has profound and long-lasting effects, that violence is sustained in part by some young people’s violence-supportive attitudes, that young men show higher violence-supportive attitudes than young women, and that prevention efforts can stop this violence from occurring and continuing. The text should note that the report was quickly amended to correct this uintentional error - it does not do this at present. (In addition, the paragraph on the report should be rewritten to improve its coherence and grammar. For example, what 'article was reprinted'?) In addition, if the entry truly is meant to be 'about' me and my work (rather than an opportunity for some character assassination), then it should devote similar amounts of space to other reports I have authored which have attracted similar amounts of media attention, such as the work I did on children's and young people's exposure to pornography and on frameworks for the prevention of violence against women. And the report I did on fathering and fatherlessness. And, if the entry is meant to be a 'neutral and accurate' account, it should abandon the material on International Men's Day, as it's based on an unpublished 'open letter' and a trivial exchange which followed and is truly a minor aspect of my work. (I've written over 80 articles for community publications, including op-eds for newspapers, but I don't think they should feature either.) Finally, whoever put back in all the links to my articles failed to check that they still work. Any references to 'downloads' on the XY site are now wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.47.146 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Frankly, I have little confidence that even if the entry is rewritten to be a fuller and more accurate account, it will stay that way. That's why I opted for a much shorter entry. And I do think that this serves *Wikipedia's* purposes: the article remains neutral and accurate, and does not go into detail which is both unnecessary and vulnerable to bias (whether in favour of or against the political and intellectual positions I happen to support). Sincerely, michael flood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.47.146 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, and part of the reason for editing this way was because it would attract adversarial editing if the issue was not covered at all. I agree that there could be a fuller exploration of your publications. Please understand that I live the other side of the world, and was unfamiliar with your work before being asked to look at that particular section - so am neutral, in as much as I came to this article with no views about you. I was asked to do this because of work I had done on another article which people had used to voice their grievances about the individual. The way that article was left has not led to a revision of that type of editing, and the subject did not feel the critical aspects should have been given the weight compared to the body of their work, but agreed it was dealt with in a balanced and neutral way. I am happy to work with you to ensure this section is accurate, including any revisions, and covering other aspects of your work - although it is the nature pf controversy that there tends to be more record of such matters than non-controversial matters (what seems significant to you may not be the same as what seems significant in the media, for example). It may be helpful if we take a copy of the article as it is, and put it in a sandbox, and then work on it in a way that addresses the points you have made, adding WP:RS to substantiate anything added. Would you be willing to assist with this? Once this is done, it can be opened up to discussion and hopefully replace the existing article. Mish (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish, I am happy to work with you and other Wikipedia editors regarding the entry. I do think that it's deeply problematic that at present, one third of the entry focuses on an error I made in a report. It gives the impression that I am unprofessional and incompetent. I am seeking legal advice regarding whether the entry is defamatory. And it's certainly clear that, as the entry stands, it is a long way from neutral or accurate. The entry could go into more detail on my other and previous areas of work. But it would then be pretty long, and frankly, I don't think I'm important enough to merit it. There are plenty of other scholars who've done more than me and whose work receives far less, if any, coverage in Wikipedia. If it is important to cover the particular controversy over the mistaken statistic in the report, then it would be more appropriate for it to be in an entry on the debates over domestic violence or attitudes to DV. I will report back to you on the legal advice I receive. However, in the meantime, I think that the entry should revert back to the much shorter version I proposed. Sincerely, michael flood.

I understood that this mistake had itself generated some controversy, and that it was in the light of that the correction was made. Is this not correct? The intention of clarifying the mistake was to be clear about the status of that controversy (that it was based on a misunderstanding, which was put right by your correction). It was not to make you look stupid. You say you are happy to work together on this, yet you contravene at least three policies in your response: WP:AGF and WP:NLT and thereby WP:Uncivil. I have already told you that I have no views about you. I shall refer this article to the WP:BLP and WP:ANI to get others' views on this, and notify them of your intentions. Mish (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reported your concerns to the BLP noticeboard, as well as the potential legal issue. I have expressed my view that the whole article be deleted. Mish (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mish, thank you for your comments. I just spent 20 minutes writing a lengthy reply to your note, but it appears not to have made it onto this page, perhaps because you were writing the above at the same time. Or perhaps it was me - as you're no doubt aware, I'm new to this editing stuff on Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to say that I did not intend to imply that your intentions were anything but constructive. I was thinking instead of whoever first entered all that detail about the mistaken statistic. I believe that this inclusion was politically motivated, and in any case, did not / does not belong in this entry. Thank you for alerting me to the Wikipedia policies. I did not 'threaten' legal action, stating merely that I was seeking legal advice, but yes, I can see how this could be interpreted as a threat. I’ve looked briefly at the BLP policy. As it stands, the entry violates aspects of this, for example, that “Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral”. Anyway, thank you for your attention to these issues. Sincerely, michael flood.

OK, let's see what the response is from BLP is. Which is here, BTW: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Flood (N.B.: WP:DOLT). I think that in the light of your comments, the section should be removed until it can be established whether this does violate WP:BLP policy and guidelines or not. Mish (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm responding to the post on the BLP noticeboard and have read the above and the disputed sections. The material about International Men's Day should be removed. There are no independent secondary sources discussing this issue, and therefore including it clearly gives undue weight to a very trivial matter in Flood's life and career.

The section about the report is more complicated, because in this case there are some secondary sources discussing the matter. However, once again, it is clear that undue weight is being given to "negative" material. For example, most of the sources cited have Flood primarily discussing the issue of children observing violence in their parents, and the boys hitting girls thing is only mentioned briefly. Nothing about the observing violence part is mentioned in the article at all, making it look indeed that this section was added to make Flood "look bad". In addition, none of the articles are about Flood and that he and his group admitted an error (ie secondary sources), making the way the information is collected together and presented in this section close to original research. This section should not be reinserted as originally written. I sincerely question whether any of it is needed at all, but a very short sentence saying that Flood and his coauthors made a an error in the report and he 'fessed up when he realized this, would be sourceable and might not be in violation of undue weight.

I don't think the list of papers is needed, but this is not a BLP issue.

--Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had posted this to ANI about the same time as you posted this, as I hadn't received a response yet. This is useful, and I will look at that section again to see how it can be included, as it is one of the few sources in the media that establishes some notability for the subject (i.e. outside academia etc.). I have reworked the bibliography to reflect the most cited items returned in Scholar, and used links to sources where available other than XYonline or his Staff page. I am concerned that the subject not select his own bibliography, but that which is notable in a third-party source, otherwise the list could be subject to COI criticism as promotional, particularly for the XYonline site, as he is the editor and major contributor. I have provided ELs to his staff page and his pages on XYonline, as that does seem appropriate. Mish (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add material and citations to prove notability. It's not necessary. The article just went through an WP:AFD process, where it was clear to all that he makes the grade per WP:PROF[6] We are past the notability stage, and into the fair, complete, appropriately sourced bio stage. --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not my intention. The previous bibliography was 'selected' by himself, and the links to papers on the web site he edits appear not to work any more. So, I did a search on Scholar, and turned up the most cited papers etc. It strikes me that an author selecting their own works from a site they are personally involved with is open to criticism, and the way to balance that is to do a search on scholar and use the references returned. That is all. I am not personally concerned whether the article is deleted or not - I have no particular interest in the subject. It seems that in a bio of an academic, then a representative sample of noteworthy papers is called for. These can be used in a more accurate account of his work, and leaving the most significant works under the bibliography should assist this - although I am unclear who would do that. Mish (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. There is a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about the bibliography, which I don't care about one way or another (though personally I think an academic is probably well qualified to judge which of his articles are the most prestigious... the danger with COI might be the number s/he includes.) But what you decided to do about this is very fine too. I was talking about your statement that you would "look at that section again to see how it can be included, as it is one of the few sources in the media that establishes some notability for the subject." That's the part that I was responding to when I said, above, that you shouldn't feel the need to establish notability using this particular info in the newspaper articles. --Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Got you. Mish (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As an onlooker I'm curious to see how this unfolds. To-date cited material has been placed in the entry, some of it from the Australian Government's ABC programe and also from other prominant media, and Dr. Flood has (as his White Ribbon Day approaches) scared everyone with mention that he is taking legal advice, and that his misreporting of facts should be covered up. The fact is that prominant media have reported he PUBLISHED dubious research, presenting false data about "male violence" in the context of a campaign against violence against females to which he is an ambassador. I assume editors are aware these citable facts will be reintroduced into the article if they are deleted? I appreciate that unbiased editors will treat these facts impartially. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I took this to WP:BLP and WP:ANI, and the response was that this does not appear to be a legal threat, but a subject of a BLP expressing a concern, and his response to being notified of WP:NLT seems to have confirmed that this was not intended as a threat but as an expression of concern: "There were some problems BLP problms with the article... I'd take him at his word that he wasn't trying to intimidate anyone". WP:DOLT makes clear that such concerns should be taken seriously; in the context of WP:BLP, the guidance is clear, such material needs to be removed until it can be established how any problems need to be addressed. If you read the advice from BLP, one section should not be re-introduced, the other needs less of a mention. The weight given to this section as it stood was undue in the context of the rest of his work - over half the article addressed the mistake with little attention to other aspects. In order to ensure NPOV, this section would need to be balanced by a more detailed appraisal of Flood's academic contributions from secondary sources. If material is entered again that appears to be intended as WP:ATTACK it will no doubt be reverted and if persistent that will lead to page protection, because BLPs are not intended as WP:SOAPboxes or as attack pages. If you doubt the neutrality of editors, you are welcome to draft a more comprehensive review of Flood's work, with sources, and offer this for discussion prior to insertion, which would speed the process of re-writing and inserting the problematic material. Mish (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets assume no intimidation/pressure is desired by Dr. Flood. I agree the right balance can be struck not by the deletion of his well cited data error, nor by removing mention of his anti International Men's Day Appeal (you will see he put quite a bit of effort into his anti IMD letter to the reading public [7], which gives an excellent insight into his beliefs and should therefore not be dismissed in favour of a less rounded portrayal) but rather by modest mention of these facts balanced within an extended mention of his other contributions. And yes i trust there are enough neutral editors to take care of this, which is why I plan to not edit. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

section break: revised edit

I have prepared a draft to replace the previous text, which removes the duplicated references and detail not found in the sources.User:MishMich/Michael_Flood I don't see this warrants its own section, and hopefully is not undue, as it now incorporates a link to the report and explains the context of the report further. Mish (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, Mish:

In November 2008, the media reported on young people's attitudes towards violence against women covered in a study undertaken by Flood for the White Ribbon foundation, [1] citing that one in three boys believed it acceptable to physically harm a girl as an example.[2][3][4]. Flood notified the media that this detail was a mistaken interpretation of the original data from the National Crime Prevention survey of 2001,[5] corrections were issued and the articles reprinted to reflect the same conclusions, but that one in seven boys believed it acceptable to force a girl to have sex as an example.[6][4]

I am concerned however that we are bending over backwards to omit the fact it was Flood-and-his-team who made the error (ie. not the media, nor the original report that Flood has misquoted). On that account it seems inadequate to say '..Flood notified the media that this detail was a mistaken interpretation of the original data', which could be misunderstood by Wikipedia readers to say that Flood was correcting someone else's mistake. It needs to be tweaked to say, even if gently, that it was Flood and his team who generated this error. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) PS. Leave it as you have written if you think best, I'm simply voicing an opinion which doesnt necessarily need including. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not bending over backwards, but trying to present the information in a way that is accurate and neutral, as this is a BLP. There are lots of things that do not get included in the encyclopedia, even if they are sourced, simply because it is unnecessary to. However, I have amended the wording slightly, bearing in mind that this warrants only a mention: "Flood notified the media that this detail in the report was based on an error in transposing one finding from the original National Crime Prevention survey of 2001". That should be sufficient - although this is more than just a mention, if it is to be included it needs to be stated in a way that is accurate. On the International Men's Day issue, I am following what has been suggested. I think that needs to be looked at separately. I will see how the subject himself feels about this version, and whether he has any suggestions about IMD and anything else that could be added to weigh the article to more accurately detail his work. Mish (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there has been a lot of backward bending over a series of edits, though I'm not directing that at you. I think the edit you made is representative of the facts and short. Dr Flood now needs to provide some elaboration of his different contributions, generally speaking, which will offer the balance to the few details so-far mentioned. I'm sure if he is serious about wanting a rounded and balanced account he might provide the material which will acheive it. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the IMD thing, and it doesn't seem to cover Flood's statement well, as he is clear that he supports men's advocacy and health, but not in the form of IMD or the way this is set out by the IMD group in Australia. The response to Flood is non-viable, because it gives no indication of what the response to Flood per se might have been (the text is not available to me), and if this was representative, it was not a reply to Flood, but an exposition of how society treats men under the auspices of a reply to Flood. Had this discussion appeared in secondary sources, then it might be justified, but both citations are from primary sources, which is inadvisable, as per WP:OR, when these can used to misrepresent the source; these appear to be drawn from self-publication, rather than secondary WP:RS. If we allowed Flood's comments in on this basis, NPOV would argue for the response to that, but when the response is not a response to Flood specifically, then it would be off-topic (in relation to the subject of the article - Flood); the need to deal with this accurately would entail it becoming undue. That is why it may be better to leave it out.Mish (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IMD of course the subject himself will call it "utterly peripheral". For the sake of a positive profile he doesnt want people to know he thinks that way about a men's initiative. Nevertheless it is a fact and very much on the public record. Leaving it out will deny the real picture of Michael Flood, but will leave this to impartial editors such as yourself to consider. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Michael may wish to leave these details blanked-out until after the White Ribbon Day has passed, ie. he may be busy and unavailable to finalise anything until a day after the campaign (he is very involved in it, as I understand). I mention this so you know there may eventuate a lag in his responses. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; but the above post makes the below all the more necessary) Hello all. A few pointers for 123.xxx about this issue.

• re IMD. MishMich provides valid arguments above, but the critical point here is that WP does not seek to cover all kinds of minor ups and downs in a person's life unless it has actually been noticed by somebody else in a reliable, independent source. This is especially so in a WP:BLP article. The exchange over IMD seems to have happened in some form but nobody outside Flood and some members of the MR movement in Australia appear to have noticed. Until there is a mention of this in the mainstream media, book or journal, it isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia per WP:UNDUE. It isn't a question of what Flood wants, but about what WP's policy require.
• On the same tack, do you have any reliable secondary sources making your claim that Flood "PUBLISHED dubious research, presenting false data about "male violence" in the context of a campaign against violence against females to which he is an ambassador."? These are very strong words and strong claims, and imply ill intent. This seems to go against the published reliable sources which suggest he or one of his co-authors/researchers made one particular mistake in report, which they quickly and publicly corrected. If you can't provide independent evidence for your interpretation of the affair, then it is your original research (and likely your WP:SOAPBOX and cannot be included.
• 123.X repeatedly suggests that Flood himself should edit the article to add balance. In fact, per our guidelines, Flood is strongly discouraged from doing so, which leaves the task to independent editors, who are required by our neutral point of view policy to edit neutrally. I appreciate that 123.x has stated s/he won't edit the article, and willingness to leave the decisions to others, since I suspect that neutral editing might be a problem given the above posts.
• Thank you, MishMich, for your effort to rewrite the sentence. As I said above, I strongly question whether the info about the report needs to be included at all, and the opinions of other independent editors is desirable. If this info is included, then the proposed section is still much too long given the current length of the article. It should be one sentence maximum at present in my view. I will propose something on your draft page. If the article is greatly expanded then this section could be too, I suppose. --Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@Slp. I have tried to track down any reference to the "Reply to Dr. M. Flood by Phil Gouldson of the Men's Health and Wellbeing Association", but can turn up nothing, not even a mention, apart from the instance here and on International Men's Day. So, I will be tagging that citation as dubious. Thank you for the above comments. I accept what you say, and if that is the way it has to be then so be it. I don't think we should be intimidated by concerns about hypothetical editors seeking to re-insert this material again, just as we are not intimidated by hypothetical legal threats. I did suggest that maybe Flood would consider providing more detail on his work, I apologise if this was incorrect or misleading as to my intentions. It was said mainly because I have neither the time nor inclination to do this myself, as I have limited interest in this article. I have revised the existing article text for readability, comprehensiveness, and conciseness. Mish (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. It looks good. It is fine for both Flood and his critics to comment and make suggestions on the talkpage. They can be helpful prompts to discussion. But both should leave the editing decisions to others. Having reread the current version bio, I am even more convinced that even a very short version of the "report issue" would be giving undue weight to a minor issue, which verges in any case on Original Research. I have been trying to compose a shorter version, but won't bother completing the task unless other experienced editors drop by who feel strongly that the material should be included. --Slp1 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, its rubbish to say I have 'repeatedly' asked for Flood to edit the article, I certainly have not! I suggested once that he might offer some material to balance the limited information currently in the article, a comment which came after another impartial editor had suggested he provide some draft material. Let me be clear I think it is not a good idea to let Flood edit the article, but rather to offer suggested edits to an impartial editor. That is what I intended.

As far as 'publishing' the mistakes, it depends what you mean by published. What *I* mean by it is that Flood and his team submitted these details to major media oulet/s for publishing (those reliable citations are already in the edits). If that is "ill intent" then you clearly have a different sense of what is meant by the word publish; ie. perhaps you refer to published comments in a book or other source as you say above.

I have read the Phil Gouldson reply to Flood online aproximately 1 month ago. I'm busy at the moment but when i get time will see if I can track it down and place the link here. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that you didn't repeatedly suggest Flood edit the article; I had you confused with another IP editor. I'm sorry.

You have the same idea of publishing as I do. I asked you to provide citations for the notion he publishes "dubious research" and presents "false data", rather than that he and his co-author made a mistake (like all of us do, occasionally) in an example, which did not make any difference to the overall point of the report, and which he publicly corrected. You would like to use this incident as an example of how his research/opinion should not be trusted, no? Has a secondary source pointed that his research is not to be trusted? Or is that just your conclusion, which would you like to have included here?

Whether you find the Phil Gouldson thing or not is irrelevant; there is no indication at all that this is an important enough episode in his life to justify inclusion since there are no secondary sources. I hope you can read WP policies for inclusion before commenting further, because this is getting a bit repetitive. --Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Men's Health and Wellbeing Ass. Phil Gouldson's complete reply to Flood is here

The Dads4Kids Association has assured me that they can provide scanned copy of the original with MHWA letterhead if proof is required. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Flood is rather well known for providing incorrect information and being corrected by reputable experts, and his accidental mistakes are singularly thematic; from what I have read they are always mistakes (as in the example given) which inflate the extent of violence perpetrated by males. I have come across formal references to some of these mistakes without even looking for them, but it is not my intention to gather up those citations nor drum up an article about his mistakes. Obviously it only needs to be a passing reference. The seriousness of this kind of mistake, with potential to incite unwarrented villification toward boys, is clearly why more than one prominant media source decided to publish that Flood and his team had provided incorrect information; it is serious. You are correct in suggesting the word "dubious" is not used, as the media were much more emphatic regarding the utterly false claim about boys 'thinking its ok to hit girls'. Rely directly on the sources and simply record what they say, or leave it out altogether if you believe WP policy demands it, I don't care either way and am concerned mainly that the prominant media reports are given due consideration. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to drop this matter, and suggest that now is probably a good time to do so. You have made further serious allegations about a living person. And as is often the case in these sorts of advocacy attempts, there are grandiose claims without proof. Note that WP:BLP policy covers the talkpage too, and your unsubstantiated claims above come very close to needing to be removed even from this page. The media correction notices, all relating to one example from a long report, where Flood himself contacted the media outlets to correct his error, (incidentally, replacing the erroneous statistic with the equally, if not more horrific, one that 1 in 7 Australian boys thinks it is okay to force sex on a girl), are nowhere near enough to justify the assessment of Flood's researching skills you make above. You are entitled to hold whatever private views of him you like, of course. You just can't publish and publicize them here without evidence. Once again, thank you for being willing to abide by the policies of WP and let's drop the matter until more third party sources are available. --Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I find your comment about a serious and potentially villifying mistake by Flood and his team (about hitting girls) being replaced by a completely different but true statistic (about sex) utterly irrelevant in terms of the initial damage done, other than the fact that Flood retracted his first mistake. I know a school teacher who, after reading Flood's mistake about boys thinking it ok to hit a girl, literally took the boys aside and gave them a stern lecture about their belief it was ok to hit a girl. This kind of mistake should not be hidden, at least that is my opinion. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Further (as I'm not convinced anyone understands the seriousness of the mistake) one wonders how many thousands of people have heard/read this wrong statistic about boys thinking it ok to hit a girl, and yet not seen the correction? How many thousands now hold a view that many boys think its ok to hit girls, that boys are worse than they are? With that question I end my badgering and will allow you to do what you do best, and I do apologise for any infringments of WP rules. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here. Why is boys thinking it is OK to force a girl to have sex 'better' than thinking it is OK to hit women, exactly? The more this point gets protested, the more I am inclined to agree with Sp1. Hopefully the teacher concerned took the boys aside again and explained that as well as not hitting girls, they shouldn't rape or sexually assault them either. What is the misrepresentation involved, exactly? That a significant number of young males are violent against women? Forcing sex is sexual violence, so the correction establishes the same point, and does not refute it. Mish (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who said forcing girls to have sex was "better" than hitting girls? I really dont know where you got that from and I cant see it anywhere on this comments page. My point above was that hitting girls is a different issue to forcing sex with girls; it is no use conflating a completely false claim about hitting girls with a different true one about forcing sex. Regarding the teacher no, she didnt take the boys aside and again lecture them not to sexually assault girls, as she felt extreme discomfort at learning, three days later, that she had falsely and unfairly accused the boys of thinking it is ok to hit girls. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So, your point is to pick holes in one example and ignore the main point, that some boys have worrying attitudes to relationship violence? I also doubt that Australian boys are that much different from British boys, one third of whom do indeed think it okay to hit females[8], or Scottish boys where one in two thought it okay [9]. We don't know specifically about Australian boys one way or the other, because they haven't been asked the question, it appears, but given the international evidence the teacher's action was well founded. Having said that, this is not a discussion page for the topic. Let's back to what we are supposed to be doing, which is to suggest improvements for the article.--Slp1 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, yes I do indeed intend to point out the "hole" (as you called it) has already been picked up by prominant media. You are (once again) making false remarks about me: I do not ignore what you have named "the main point" and in fact I mention it three times above, affirming that it is fact that boys "find it ok to force sex with a girl". If this is not a talk page then why are you fabricating completely baseless rubbish about me, such as that I "have repeadedly asked flood to edit the article" or that I "ignore [what you call] the main point", or more interestingly as the above editor suggested that I think "to force a girl to have sex [is] 'better' than thinking it is OK to hit women". If you two want facts then I'm afraid such comments are heading you both far south. Flood made a serious mistake, you put it in the entry or not (that is the choice you seem unable to determine), but please spare me any more of the weird allegations. In fact if you make any more baseless allegations like the three I suggested immediately above, you will be reported. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So, is Flood's mistake as reported by prominant media going to be briefly mentioned in the entry, or not? That is the main thing I would like to determine now. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)