Our thanks to Ken for pointing out that our Wikipedia entry is becoming ever more misleading over time. Gems include this, concerning our 2015 general election manifesto:
The section on sexual abuse concentrates on female offenders, and the issue of 85,000 rapes and 400,000 sexual assaults annually committed against women in the UK is avoided.
85,000 rapes ‘annually committed against women in the UK’? It’s a longstanding feminist lie. On p.36 of the manifesto you’ll find the government’s statistic for the number of men convicted of rape in British courts in 2013:
980
So, who can we credit with such misinformation on our Wikipedia entry? Life is too short to track down the author of every bit of nonsense, and at least you know what to expect from geniuses such as ‘The Vintage Feminist’, but a particularly keen ‘editor’ is Philip Cross, whoever he – or, more likely, she – is. (S)he made 16 changes on 21 June alone. The Revision History is here. Material that (s)he cut includes the story of my writing articles for International Business Times – here – before being replaced by Ally Fogg, a (male) feminist Guardian columnist.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I smiled broadly with amusement as I read this item and several very flippant comments crossed my mind, all of which I’m sure are not fit to print here. One however is repeatable: Is Philip cross as in eyes / wires, angry or simply crucified as in nailed up and hung out to dry?
There was one on possible abbreviations for the unwieldy (s)he/it but that really is puerile and not worthy of a serious blog such as this, so I shan’t offer it here.
LikeLike
I added a section on the related “talk” page (which no doubt will soon be removed again by the editors):
2015 general election mention
Why is it important to mention “the issue of rape and assaults annually committed against women” on a mens party article? There are plenty of other political parties who completely ignore male victims and concentrate only on female victims making out that DV and sexual assault are completely gendered issues. This feeds into the feminist narrative that “men are the problem”. 40% of DV victims are male. Therefore it would be nice to revise the following section by leaving out the sentence about rape+assaults committed against women. It is not pertinent to the goals of the party and it is not important that a partythat concentrates on male disadvantages also mention female rape + Assaults, especially in the current political climate:
“The section on sexual abuse concentrates on female offenders, and the issue of rape and assaults annually committed against women in the UK is avoided.[11]”
(scrap the second part of the sentence)
LikeLike
I don’t know much about Wikipedia, but natural justice requires that if any misleading and mendacious changes are made to the J4MB Wikipedia entry, they should be changed back again to show the truth? Can a complaint be made to Wikipedia?
LikeLike
One thing that can be done is a contribution to the “talk” page, which I did – but I am not a long standing Wikipedia editor so I didn’t want to touch the main article to start an edit war. I already got a comment and replied just now:
LikeLike
Thanks rr2000. (S)he says, “I don’t consider any J4MB sources and claims credible.” How can such a person be fit to edit our Wiki page? And since when did J4MB ‘make excuses for rapists’?!!!
LikeLike
This is generally the problem with wikipedia.
The moderators are all (or nearly all) feminists, and they push the feminist agenda everywhere they can.
I have also heard that some gender studies courses set projects for students to “fix” wikipedia.
Overall it seems there are a lot of feminists with a lot of time on their hands, who can spend hours every day “fixing” wikipedia to make it pro-feminist and anti-male.
LikeLike