Battle of Backbone Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.

NPOV

Dramatic edits to this article over the past few months have knocked it pretty far outside the bounds of NPOV. On one hand, statements about Rodale Publishing "aiming to provide readers with ways to enhance their lives", etc, really don't belong there unless they are being cited against some kind of written editorial policy somewhere. Cheerleading qualifiers such as "Unlike other men's magazines" really don't belong there at all.

At the same time, the lopsided bias toward coverage of that one negative academic paper seems like someone having an axe to grind... for which Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum. For balance, I left in a sentence objectively highlighting the criticisms raised, and put the link to that academic paper in the "External Links" section. Anything beyond that really needs to be discussed here to avoid an NPOV-dispute.

SteveAtlanta 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the word "discourse" to "content" in the final paragraph, because the latter sounds a little more natural. I've also tweaked the final sentence to be more neutral. "Follow-up studies are necessary to determine [other things]..." gives the impression that this article takes a position on the validity of what the previous study determined, rather than stating the findings and scope from an objective standpoint.
SteveAtlanta 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have had a subscription to the magazine for years, and I have never, ever, read anything that promotes "unsafe," "aggressive" sex. The magazine also has never promoted convenience food, unless it is healthy. They actually provide credible information backed by professionals in multiple fields of study and promote treating women in a respectable way. If you want a magazine to criticize, try Cosmopolitan.

For three years this article - and other related articles, such as the magazine editor's bio and the page for Best Life magazine - have been updated by someone who seems to only work on those specific articles. It may be time to try and uncover whether the company itself is doing the work. HelpnWP (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover model

I don't know if the cover model competition exists in other countries, but I thought it would be something worthy to the expansion of the article. What do you think? Istabo 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request rename

The magazine is called Men's Health – not, as the current title implies, Men's Health Magazine. I think the article should be moved and renamed to Men's Health (magazine) or Men's Health. --Muchness 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Rd232 for moving the page. --Muchness 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Is this Men-Magazine the most populerst and Nr.1 ?

Image copyright problem with Image:McConaughey march.jpg

The image Image:McConaughey march.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I've added a COI tag to the article due to the edits from User:65.115.34.244 (which is identified as an IP belonging to Rodale Inc, the publisher of Men's Health). Some cleanup may be required. Note also the single purpose account User:Healthy2010 recently adding links in the body of the article, as well as the older account User:Sefit07. I have not bothered to open a sockpuppetry case, but I will if this continues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have laid out why you think there is a conflict of interest but not what content actually is in dispute or anything that has to be fixed. Some clean-up is not a reason to put a conflict of interest tag. Until you either specify what needs to be addressed and demonstrate those editors are causing a content problem it feels like you are just assuming they are causing problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have failed to address any actual clean-up that the tag is meant for, I am again removing it, if you restore please specify exactly what content needs clean-up in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll tell you what the problem is. This article looks as if it was written by somebody from the circulation department, or maybe a PR agency, who didn't know how to write, and didn't understand what it takes to make a good magazine, or a good health news story. It's filled with circulation figures, international editions, and other statistics which looks like they were copied from the magazine's media kit or from Standard Rate & Data, along with some suckup glorification of Lafavore and other editors.
But this article omits any discussion of the content of Men's Health -- the articles -- which are important to the readers. (Readers, remember? Giving readers interesting and important articles is the purpose of a magazine.) What kind of articles is Men's Health publishing that makes readers interested enough to read it?
For example:
https://www.menshealth.com/health/prostate-cancer-proton-therapy
The Magic Bullet for Prostate Cancer
The problem is, it's not magic. And with a price tag of $200 million, it's the most expensive medical device in the history of the world. Is it worth it?
By Laura Beil
February 1, 2011
This article and others like it were important because proton beam therapy was one of the first examples of an expensive treatment that was (and is) being shamelessly promoted by hospitals in order to draw in patients, when its promoters and manufacturers haven't done the randomized, controlled trials that are necessary to see whether it even works as well as the competing treatments of x-ray and radioactive isotope radiation, much less better. It was a medical fraud to say, in the abscence of evidence, that it was better, as its promoters were doing. This was a difficult story. The author, Laura Beil, described how she wrote the story http://healthjournalism.org/resources-articles-details.php?id=331 and she later won an award for another, similar story she did for Men's Health on robotic surgery, for which she won an award from the Association of Health Care Journalists http://healthjournalism.org/about-news-detail.php?id=191 The best part was the angry letters from the manufacturers, which they printed, and the devastating rebuttals to those letters which they could write because Beil did such a good job of research.
That's why this is such a terrible Wikipedia piece. It's full of mind-numbing circulation statistics, and ignores the real, solid journalistic accomplishments of Men's health: stories that helped men with prostate cancer -- at their moment of greatest need -- get through the lies and bullshit of the medical marketers who are trying to exploit them. Most medical journalism is clutter, but these stories really made a difference.
I once handed in a story to my editor, who said, "Rewrite it. Don't touch it up. Start all over again from the beginning." That's what this Wikipedia entry needs.
We should blank the entire article, salvage the few facts that are of any interest to a Wikipedia reader, and rewrite it all over again. I think Beil's description of how she did the proton beam and robotic surgery stories should be a big part of it. I would suggest also using the standard directories that librarians use, Katz' Magazines for Libraries https://lib2.colostate.edu/howto/keyjrl.html for a good overview of the magazine (not a list of circulation figures) and why it might be worth a subscription in a library. I would see what journalism magazines like Columbia Journalism Review had written, and search newspapers with media coverage like the New York Times (not for bullshit like new appointments or quarterly earnings figures). People who are editing this article should read Men's Health, but ironically the way Wikipedia works, you have to avoid WP:OR original research and use the conclusions of third-party sources.
As science journalist Carl Zimmer says, a good article needs to put its facts together into a story. This entry should have a story, that you can sum up in a sentence or two. I hit upon Men's Health when I was doing backround research on the Da Vinci robotic surgery. My reaction was, "I thought Men's Health was written for dumb jocks who want tips on exercises and quack diets, but they're really doing really solid, prize-winning journalism." I can't write that in a Wikipedia article, but for me, that was the story of Men's Health.
For Wikipedia purposes, I would say, "If you judge Men's Health by their best work, they've done award-winning stories on controversial treatments for prostate cancer that helped men make decisions when their lives depended on it." Or I would look at what the AHCJ wrote in their award statement. --Nbauman (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Allowkeeps, 4 November 2010

{{edit protected}} I removed a false statement and added sourced content. You erased all of it. You blanked out and remove portions of page content not me.

Please remove the false statement and add back in all the content and sources, they are accurate.

Allowkeeps (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-warring to insert substantial promotional copy was, I have no doubt, a significant factor in leading to page protection. I don't think there is any question of allowing you continue the edit war by proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source

In case somebody has time to incorporate it, I found a highly detailed article in the scholarly journal Men and Masculinities called "Health and the Social Construction of Masculinity in Men’s Health Magazine". It's an excellent source for this article: detailed, focused, and reliable. FourViolas (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Tricky little histmerge required as well. Jenks24 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Men's Health (magazine) → Men's Health – It's a a dab with only two pages. Move this page to that name and use a hatnote like {{For|health issues that apply specifically to men|men's health}} or somesuch. No need for a disambiguation of two. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but it looks like there might be some page history things to work out here. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. This is a WP:TWODABS situation that can be more effectively handled with a hat note.--Cúchullain t/c 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Men's Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men's Health. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men's Health. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Men's Health. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_Health