Talk:Mike Buchanan (politician)

New party name

A quick note to confirm I've let the originator of this page, The Vintage Feminist, know that our party name was changed in agreement with the Electoral Commission from "Justice for Men & Boys" http://j4mb.org.uk to "Children & Family Party" http://cafp.uk in April 2022. Hopefully she or another editor of the page will amend it accordingly. Thanks. Mike Buchanan, party leader. 2.26.145.230 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It appears the party has decided to revert to the previous name - as posted on the website cited second. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Mike Buchanan writes:

Thank you. Could the date under my photo please be amended to show I remain the party's leader to this day, having resumed the leadership when Elizabeth Hobson resigned? Thanks. 46.69.38.168 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate assertion

Hi. Near the start of the piece there's this claim:

"He is also claims (sic) to be a media commentator for the men's rights movement though many activists distance themselves from his strident opinions."

I am not aware of any such activists, let alone "many". Can you please either identify them (if they exist) or remove this sentence? Thanks. 2.31.227.105 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done – I've removed the latter part of the sentence since it's unsourced. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks EW. If you or one of your colleagues could spare the time to make some or all of the other corrections and additions I've requested, that would be much appreciated. Best wishes, Mike Buchanan, 79.97.145.129 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested modifications, some due to inaccurate assertions

(Requests from Mike Buchanan [1], party leader.)

The first sentence needs to change to reflect the fact that the political party’s name is now Children & Family Party [2]. Details below.

Campaign for Merit in Business – please add the hyperlink [3].

Children & Family Party – new section required. I’ve already requested (see above) recognition that the party’s name changed in April 2022 to the Children & Family Party [4]. The party’s manifesto for the next UK general election – which must be held by May 2024 at the latest – is here https://cafp.uk/manifesto/. It contains proposals and backgrounds on 20 issues. Mike Buchanan will be the sole candidate and standing in the Bedford constituency http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bedford_(UK_Parliament_constituency), a very marginal seat where he’s lived for over 25 years.

“Justice for Men & Boys” section – line starting, “The party issues…”. Firstly, “Lying Feminist of the Month” awards were not restricted to journalists. The awards are no longer issued, but another category was “Gormless Feminist of the Month”.

“Later activities” section – 2016 conference, please add hyperlink [5].

2018 conference – please add the hyperlink [6]. Birmingham City FC claimed it was "misled at the time of booking" but this assertion is untrue, please omit.

2019, Cambridge University. Firstly, please mention that Mike Buchanan and Elizabeth Hobson (the party’s Director of Communications at the time) were at the university to give talks on feminism and men’s rights.

“University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics.” The claim was an outright lie, shamefully reported by The Guardian, a paper which is hostile towards anti-feminists.

The milkshaking incident – a female supporter of the party chased after one of the two milkshakers (a woman) and successfully caught her and recorded the aftermath on her smartphone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5epds6bs4M.

“An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors.” Another claim which was an outright lie, reported by a feminist student website. The truth was that an attendee – previously unknown to us – was assaulted by the protesters.

At the end of the “Later activities” please add that I was the organizer of two further International Conferences on Men’s Issues, held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 conference [7] and 2021 [8]. I am the organizer of an in-person International Conferences on Men’s Issues which will be held in Budapest, Hungary, in 2024.

Thank you. 2.27.146.24 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of these things would require coverage in independent sources to justify inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Harry. Two thoughts:

- surely those things that do NOT require "coverage in independent sources" can be implemented? Obvious examples include the change of party name four months ago, in April 2022.

- "independent sources" don't provide "coverage" of men's issues or challenge feminist lies and misrepresentations - indeed they're the chief means of delivering them to the public - so it would seem to follow that Wikipedia doesn't either. The pro-feminist bias of the mainstream media, and Wikipedia, is outrageous. In the UK only one in 11 women and one in 25 men self-identify as feminists, according to a survey carried out for the Fawcett Society, a feminist charity, in 2016. Happy to provide a link to that report if you wish. 78.19.233.112 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It appears the party has decided to revert to the previous name - as posted on the party website> Please submit a new request with appropriately cited claims from reliable sources. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)

Mike Buchanan is diametrically opposed to MGM. Let it be stated unequivocally. The likes of KlayCax suggesting that use of the term "Male genital mutilation" is POV, then replacing it with "routine circumcision" laughable. This is the same user who in their following edit "clarifies" and expands the abbreviation MGM (reused in a later part of the text) as "genital mutilation" (after deleting the original expansion "Male Genital Mutilation [MGM]" in their previous edit). No KlayCax, it is YOU who is insidiously POV. I'm restoring the facts. Otherwise, bring it, please. Miss Andry (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, really appreciated. 2.26.145.149 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We can't state that in Wikivoice. It's a violation of WP: NPOV to state as such. While there is a substantial debate in the literature about the ethics of routinely performing it: the overwhelmingly majority of sources don't equivalate the two. Per Martha Nussbaum: Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision ..." While routine circumcision might be ethically wrong, Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism or "to right great wrongs." KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Buchanan replies:

"While routine circumcision might be ethically wrong..." MIGHT?!!! For anyone wanting to learn the truth about Male Genital Mutilation, I recommend our 112-video playlist on the subject https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMscr0TpRqgDT--hnKe3XOKXypbM_R2K. 70.188.52.195 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax, Spare me that "Wikivoice" claptrap, and fairy-tales about WP neutrality. It's farcical, pretentious, and quite frankly a waste of my time. The quality and nature of this entry alone reeks of misandry and insidious anti-Mike sentiment. But I digress.

Now, I don't know if you require illustration in crayon to understand the following simple facts: Mike Buchanan protests MGM; MGM is a recognized term; and this entry is NOT about YOUR perspective. Listen, you are free to prefer the silly term "routine circumcision", you are free to consider MGM a "fallacious analogy" to FGM, etc. But the purpose of this article is to accurately document what Mr. Buchanan is about. It not the place to discuss and impose your opinion.

The only activism being done here are your flimsy attempts to re-word according to feminist consensus. Is quoting Martha Nussbaum (or some random/pompous feminist academic with a clitoris) supposed to mean something to me!? You, my dear, are a funny guy. It might come as a surprise to you, but there are those of us who do not concede to feminist arbitration or gynocentric dictates. Your voices are not the only ones to be heard.

Bottom line: Unless Wikipedia wishes to censor the term MGM, then IT IS WHAT IT IS -- "Mike Buchanan campaigns against MGM". Those are the facts. Report them; let them be stated accurately and unequivocally. Anything else is re-phrasing according to YOUR POV. Miss Andry (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with KlayCax. I'd advocate for removing the section entirely. Besides citation to Buchanan's own site, there doesn't appear to be much coverage at all of his advocacy in this area. Unless mentioned by other sources, Metro (see WP:RSP) is not reliable or sufficient for demonstrating that his highway obstruction conviction is due either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Buchanan replies:

There isn't much coverage (in the mainstream media) of anybody's activity in relation to MGM. If "much coverage" in the MSM is a pre-requisite for an entry in Wiikipedia, a huge amount of Wikipedia content should be removed. This seems to me a cynical bid to remove content on MGM, a major issue for the men's rights movement for a long time. The Wikipedia entries on MGM and the men's rights movement MRM is utterly hopeless and misleading, doubtless due to the woeful influence of feminists on Wikipedia. 2.28.183.120 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not right when one side plays the "your definitions do not correspond to my definitions, but my definitions are right" gane, and it's not right when you do it either. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough mainstream coverage to lend weight to the term "male genital mutilation" outside of attribution of quotes. Especially not as a replacement to (routine) circumcision. BlueNoise (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The term MGM is not a Mike Buchanan invention. It is true that MGM doesn't receive nearly the same mainstream coverage as FGM. But it is also true that MGM is subject to rabid and fanatical opposition by frothing feminists, gynocentrics, religious zealots, practitioners and the rest of the industry that is heavily invested in the human (especially infant) foreskin trade. But the term MGM is STILL used. It even found its way in this 2011 article in the The Guardian (yikes! of all places!) by Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld -- both doctoral students at Oxford University at the time: "If we oppose female genital mutilation, has the time not come for us also to oppose male genital mutilation?". MGM is Mike's stance too. Report it as such, and not what YOU think he should be saying. Miss Andry (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Justice for Men & Boys is no longer a political party

Since we de-registered as a political party with the Electoral Commission at the end of March 2023, J4MB has not been a political party (fairly obviously). An editor edited the page accordingly recently, but another editor, 'Emeraude', reversed those edits, so this page now gives the (false) impression we're still a party. I am having a conversation with Emeraude on his/her Talk page on the matter, hopefully all will be sorted before long.

Mike Buchanan Leader, J4MB 2.27.196.79 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

https://j4mb.org.uk/2023/06/23/a-blog-post-for-emeraude-wikipedia-editor/ 2.27.196.79 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Curiously J4MB still seems to be a political party for the purposes of receiving donations, but on a website for a different "party". See https://cafp.uk/donate/... Archived [9]. I wonder what the law is about that.. Slp1 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Children & Family Party was a rebranding which we later dropped, to return to J4MB. This is made abundantly clear on the website e.g. https://cafp.uk/2022/12/28/weve-officially-reverted-to-our-original-name-justice-for-men-and-boys/. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's make it simple. If there is a reliable source that says J4MB is no longer a party then Wikipedia will use that. Otherwise, the status quo is what it is and the article stands. Don't blame editors; provide a source that does what it says, not what you say. A party that has deregistered (or been deregistered) does not cease to be a party - it merely means it cannot stand for election or solicit political campaign donations. There are lots of parties that are not registered (or have deregistered). It would be simpler to provide a reliable source than to continue a pointless diatribe here and on the J4MB website. Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

On your Talk page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Emeraude you wrote:

"If there is a reliable source - e.g. the J4MB website saying "we are no longer a party" (which would be very simple)..."

As you've seen, I did EXACTLY that, and yet you persist. I've explained why I cannot provide a "reliable source" i.e. the mainstream media refuse to give us any coverage.2.27.196.79 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen you've provided a link. Give it here now so that someone can add it to the article, or even add it to the article yourself. Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And here's the issue. The website page "About J4MB" says, "From the beginning, and until its de-registration as a party in April 2023, J4MB was the only party in the English-speaking world....." That's fine and simple. But it is does not say that J4MB is no longer a party, only that it has deregistered as a party. Edit the website and Bob's your uncle! Emeraude (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude, it's here:

https://j4mb.org.uk/2023/06/23/a-blog-post-for-emeraude-wikipedia-editor/ 2.27.196.79 (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A (snide) blog post is hardly sufficient. Why not just do what I suggested and change the website? Emeraude (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was once told people can't edit the Wiki pages on themselves. If that's not the case, then how might I go about this? Thanks. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

By doing what Emeraude suggested and make a change to your website to explain that your organisation is no longer operating as a political party. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I left this on Cordless Larry's talk page:

"Hi Larry. With respect to the changes I've made to the page on myself Mike Buchanan (politician) you raise the issue of 'reliable sources'. Of course I understand the importance of reliable sources, but there's an issue I keep raising with Wiki editors, but never get any engagement. Two key points:

- the publications considered 'reliable sources' - I assume you're referring to the mainstream media - are anything BUT reliable with regards to men's issues and feminism. They either give no exposure to Men's Rights Activists and anti-feminists (such as myself) or they mislead.

- conversely, Wiki editors - feminists, many of them - freely use non-reliable feminist sources (e.g. Cambridge University-related website 'Varsity') to corrupt pages such as mine.

I've said it before, but the corruption of Wikipedia by feminists is self-evident on every page concerned with gender politics." Mike3167 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

From my page, credited to The Guardian:

"University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics."

University staff LIED but because it's in The Guardian, it passes into the article, and my edit saying the allegation was a lie has been removed.

Another example:

"An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors."

Another LIE but my edit saying the accusation was a lie has been removed. Any you think The Tab is a 'reliable source'?

The bottom line? Wikipedia editors are using their power to censor this web page (and every othe pages relating to gender politics, feminism, men's rights...). Mike3167 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not censorship to insist on reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which documents a core Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It IS censorship when the 'reliable' sources are UNRELIABLE, as in the two examples I just gave you!!! Mike3167 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, congratulations on removing my corrections, and adding more content to extend the bias. Feminists must love you! Even the opening sentence is incorrect as a result of your edit:

"Gordon Michael Alexander Buchanan (born 8 December 1957) founded and has since either led or chaired the minor political party, Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them) (J4MB), in the United Kingdom."

It has been incorrect for almost three months. Mike3167 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You've been told what you can do about that by Emeraude but you don't appear willing to listen. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I amended it and you returned it to the incorrect text!!! Mike3167 (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Emeraude didn't tell you to amend the article. Please read their instructions and stop wasting other editors' time. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

He asked me to change the website, I did that, and still you persisted with the edits. Mike3167 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page that you've changed on your website. We're not mind-readers. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

https://j4mb.org.uk/2015-general-election-manifesto/ Mike3167 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You've still not addressed Emeraude's comment that the website "does not say that J4MB is no longer a party, only that it has deregistered as a party". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, I'm slowly losing the will to live. Maybe that's the point of these exchanges.

Click on that last link again, you'll see I've changed the last sentence in the relevant paragraph to:

"J4MB is no longer a party, but its mission remains unchanged." Mike3167 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It does now (finally!). It didn't when you posted earlier. Emeraude, do you think this is sufficient? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, nobody (other than you and Emeraude) have thought it remotely possible that we still existed as a political party after we announced we'd de-registered. Mike3167 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully believed it, especially given how few votes you attracted as a party! But the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether I or any other editor believes something to be true. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, would you like to explain by what process 'Varsity', the feminist Cambridge Uni website, is deemed a 'reliable source'? It lied from beginning to end of the period relating to our talks there, and the photographer who took a snap of the milkshaking worked for them. Mike3167 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Varsity is a student newspaper (see Varsity (Cambridge)). If you want to query its reliability, I suggest asking for input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. See also WP:RSSM on the reliability of student media. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need to 'query its reliability', it's demonstrably unreliable. My point is such unreliable outlets get included in Wiki articles, which tels me all I need to know about the feminist bias of Wiki. Maybe we should leave it here. Mike3167 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you've now added a Bibliography with one entry, a book by Laura Bates in which she libelled a number of MRAs including myself? You're on fire haha! Mike3167 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So, you've preferred charges for libel against Bates? Or are you just making accusations? Be aware that falsely accusing someone of an offence is itself an offence. Emeraude (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's in the bibliography section to facilitate the use of shortened footnotes to allow for the citation of multiple locations in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My public challenge of Laura Bates, twice a winner of our 'Lying Feminist of the Month' awards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Wk_SFlDbw Mike3167 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Larry, thanks for the extensive latest edits, part of your ongoing efforts to make the page even more of a feminist hit piece. You cite the utterly biased student rag 'Varsity' again, and write this:

"... no action had been taken against the party member who had been accused of assaulting student protestors...".

Hmm, why was no action taken? Maybe because the accusation was a lie, and the man was assaulted by the protesters? Do you really think a man would attack a crowd of protesters? The question should be, why did the police not take action against the protesters who assaulted the man? The answer is that they provided zero protection all day, they were nowhere to be seen. The only security at the venue was paid for by J4MB. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

One again, we can only include in the article what reliable sources verify. Please read WP:VERIFY and save us all time. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, thanks for referencing our Golders Green protests against Male Genital Mutilation in 2016, our video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bmWY9eg6fc Mike3167 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry That would seem to do it. So simple and could have been done days ago if we hadn't had to put up with a load of irrelevant tub-thumping.! (Actually, I belived it too, but thought the reason might be not the small number of votes but the annual registration fee and the need to furnish accounts, but who knows? Or cares?) Emeraude (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Larry, thanks for being so openly contemptuous towards my organisation and myself. I'd have thought Wikipedia editors should at least PRETEND to not be hostile towards people who are the subject of pages, so your candour is appreciated. Mike3167 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Or should I have addressed those last comments to Emeraude? Mike3167 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No. What you should have done is acquainted yourself with Wkipedia's standards of good behaviour and respect for others. Or, in a general sense, good manners! Emeraude (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The image on the cover of "Feminism: The Ugly Truth" is of a female vampire, not a zombie. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)