Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 21 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men's rights movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages.Please see Talk:Men's rights/Article probation for further information. Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is here, under the section "Log of sanctions"

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men's rights. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men's rights at the Reference desk.

Points of interest related to Men's rights on Misplaced Pages: Category

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: North, Anna (2011-10-18). "Men's Rights Fight Breaks Out On Misplaced Pages". Jezebel. Retrieved 2011-10-18.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Social security and retirement

I edited the social security and retirement section to reflect updated citations and corrected inaccuracies. I also divided it by country so that it was easier to read and update. LikaTika (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Updated introduction for clarity and included more information. Removed the bit about historical roles of men relating to their physical capabilities, not germane to the introduction but might have a place elsewhere. LikaTika (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does the MR intro say "claimed by men/boys" whereas the WR article says "claimed for"? This seems inconsistent and introduces subtle, yet important bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wages

It doesn't really seem appropriate to continue to cite information from the 1980 census. Not only is it outdated, but it is also mis-cited. I suggest the removal of the sentence "Wages are not the only factor in determining spending power. 1984 U.S. Census Bureau data indicates "women who are heads of households have a net worth that is 141 percent of the net worth of men who are heads of households." Ideas? LikaTika (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the entire "wages" section should be removed, as it is covered under the income disparities section and it is not rights related. LikaTika (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted the section. Although it did have sources, none of them dealt with the issue in the context of men's rights. It would be inappropriate for us, as Misplaced Pages editors, to attempt to synthesize statistics like that. If reliable secondary sources discuss the content of the wages section in the context of men's rights then it could be appropriate to include, but until those sources are located that section doesn't belong in this article. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Politicial Representation

It does not seem appropriate to include the letter-writing campaign of a single person under this heading. Plus, the first link is dead. I propose removing these two sentences "In 2009, Reece Wilkes a 16 year old student from Northallerton, North Yorkshire called on the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman to support the idea of a Minister for Men. Later Reece was to criticise the response from the Government Equalities Office, stating that the response was a "cop-out" and that they did not address the issues that he had raised." LikaTika (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed this section, see WP:Undue LikaTika (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Refugees

I can't find any credible information about the Australian policy information regarding "In Australian immigration policy a distinction is regularly made between women and children (often treated erroneously as equivalent to "family groups") and single men" and this sentence itself is both poorly worded and biased. I think it should be removed if no citations are forthcoming. LikaTika (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems pretty reliable, section "Residential Housing Projects" link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

scope of this article

How should we define the scope of this article, keeping in mind especially WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH? Should we talk about things like the magna carta or Constitution that definitely were advances for the rights of men? (Perhaps we should even move this article to something like 'claims of the men's right activist movement'?) Kevin (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm developing a separate "men's rights movement" article on my userpage, and it has a 'claims of the men's rights movement' section, so it is probably more appropriate there. That article will be about the modern "men's rights movement" while this should be about the rights of men, and I think should include historical rights for men as you've mentioned. LikaTika (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With that in mind, I commented out the history of the modern men's rights movement, as it refers to the history of those groups and not the history of the rights of men. LikaTika (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We already have the articles masculism and men's rights movement in India so that MRA views of men's rights should be more than sufficiently covered. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

improving the article

In general, I am going to be removing any section that does not have:

1. at least one reliable source (WP:V)
2. at least one reliable source that explicitly connects the issue to men's rights (WP:NOR)
3. at least one reliable source talking about the issue that does not simply say that the issue is a concern for men's rights activist groups. (WP:FRINGE)

I'm not going to be removing these completely, but will also be looking to repair:

1. Any section where MRA positions are presented as mainstream positions, or sections where most of the section is talking about MRA positions (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE)
2. Any section that talks about issues that are specific to the global north that makes statements like "A primary concern about men's rights is..." (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE)

In general, I will be repairing sections where possible rather than completely deleting them. Any sections I delete that you believe you are able to repair can be recovered from the history of the page; feel free to readd them, as long as their sourcing problems have been fixed. Under the general principles I enumerated above, I'm about to rewrite the lede because it makes unsourced claims (that are not sourced later in the article, either) that are not supported in mainstream sources as far as I know. The child support section that was just added is also very problematic as it stands. I'm not opposed to the article talking about child support, but currently that section presents a fringe position with no counterpoint using a single source that doesn't entirely support what the section states. A good first step towards making the child support section better would be to rephrase it as "Stephen Baskerville, describewhoheishere, states..." rather than "Members of the father's rights movement state" and then to substantially expand the section with mainstream positions. I'll try to do this myself in the near future, but if I can't get around to it today I may end up taking the section out until someone can bring it in to compliance with WP:NPOV. Kevin (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With WP:NOR in mind, I removed the education section. It only listed gender differences in education and was not tied to men's rights. LikaTika (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Should all sections referring to SIF (Save Indian Family) be removed under WP:FRINGE? LikaTika (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in here - on rereading this again after a few years I'd agree with Kevin's points and wrt parts like those mentioning SIF the references used are gven undue weight and should be removed under that part of teh NPOV policy rather than WP:FRINGE--Cailil 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, SIF is part of Men's Rights and should be included, if not expanded. TickTock2 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SIF is a men's rights advocacy organization. It is related to men's rights, and their viewpoints can be mentioned in this article, but only if they are given proportionate weight. SIF is not in any way 'part of men's rights.' Right now, they are given undue weight. The problem can be fixed by improving and expanding the article - but in places where it is not practicable to expand the existing material enough to alleviate WP:UNDUE issues, we will need to delete information dealing with SIF. Some of the material currently present in this article may be appropriate in an article about the men's rights advocacy movement or another article like that (as long as we still counterbalance it with mainstream viewpoints) - but MRA claims cannot represent a majority of the general article on men's rights. Kevin (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue that has relevance to men's rights, so I don't see how you can attempt to say it's not part of men's rights. It's similar to attempting to have a Women's Rights page without mentioning feminism. How are they given undue weight? They are mentioned three places on the page, first in the picture, one in relevance in the Domestic Violence section and then in the links section. I would counter that's not undue weight. Undue weight applies if it's receiving MORE attention then it deserves and it simply does not, and please no one is asserting that MRA are a majority on this article but it is relevant. TickTock2 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first started editing this article, MRA claims were certainly a majority of the article. I (and Lika) have greatly reduced the portion of content in the article that was primarily MRA content with no counterpoint. The article is better than it was, but it is still not fixed - and it's original state, yes, MRA claims were an overwhelming majority of the article. I did not see before posting my latest response that Lika had actually already commented out the section about SIF that I objected to, in this diff. I don't see a huge problem with the remaining mentions of SIF in that article, but that paragraph had to go. It contained no reliable source and made a claim "...With the increasing abuse of Dowry Laws against men..." that is massively POV. There's absolutely no reason why a minor MRA organization warranted a whole paragraph near the start of the article, and the paragraph was riddled with problems (WP:UNDUE included). Kevin (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I don't intend to leave this article as a gutted shell. I know more stuff needs to be added - I'm just removing everything that needs to be removed first, so that it's clear what is needed going forward. After I've removed or repaired the content in the article that is not compliant with policy, I'll start digging through sources and adding additional appropriate content. Feedback on what kind of content this should be is welcome - I'm not sure what exactly the scope of this article should really be - there's a talk section about it one section up. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the same page. I think a wider scope will be especially helpful. I've included a section on ancient Greece to get started on history, now that we've removed the history of the modern MRM. LikaTika (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage additions such as compulsive military service or punishments such as castration in Ancient Greece and the middle ages. TickTock2 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

With that in mind, I added additional information in the "history" section. LikaTika (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I must say the only additions I have seen to the page have been very "lightly" added, mostly been removed. I hope to see some additions, for example your comment about Child Support links being hard to find very disappointing as a glance at say Father's Rights Movement, has plenty of sources that are very easily added here and relevant. I hope to see some useful additions. TickTock2 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also bring up the idea of basing this similarly to the Womens's Rights, as far as page layout goes. Does anyone object to that idea? TickTock2 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that so far it has mostly been the subtraction and not addition of content. I've pretty much been intending to get rid of all of the stuff that needs to go out, and then add stuff that needs to go in. I am doing this partly because the presence of incredibly unbalanced POV material is, in my mind, worse than the absence of some things that should be here. Once the article is cleaned up of ridiculous stuff, I'll start adding more non-ridiculous stuff. The women's rights article is generally not too far off from what this article should eventually be. Although the treatment of the modern women's rights movement on that page will be different than the treatment of MRA's here - we'll have to make it clear on this page that MRA's are (or at least so far have been) a minor movement that has not enjoyed the mainstream political or cultural success. We also probably won't be able to have the same sections talking about modern international conventions that the women's rights page has, just because there aren't really modern international conventions dealing with the rights of specifically men - or at least I can't think of any similarly big ones offhand. Kevin (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed a large section of the "violence" topic and retitled it "Domestic violence" which seemed to reflect it more accurately. The section I commented out seems to be a debate regarding statistics, not men's rights. LikaTika (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and completely acceptable, although I would leave it open to be converted back to general violence if need be.
I would also point out, to keep in mind this is not an article about Men vs Women, so some of comparisons between women and men are not needed, for example the Athens comment, could instead discuss the mandatory ownership of property and military conscription needed to be citizens. TickTock2 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reproductive Rights

I'm getting two different sources credited with creating the term "male abortion" - http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/opinion/10tierney.html/partner/rssnyt?_r=1 here, it's Frances Goldscheider, a professor of sociology at Brown University - And in the article it's Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney. I think we might actually have it wrong, that McCulley was using an already existing term. Thoughts? Better citations? LikaTika (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Religious Section?

So, I was just wondering how is the religions related to men's rights again? Maybe I am a little confused. TickTock2 (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did those additions. I more than welcome suggestions for reorganizing them, but I kept finding men's rights that were related to religion instead of country, and wasn't sure where to put those. It is a right or a freedom set aside for, or affecting men. LikaTika (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to commit to a certain spelling of Quran - I found on the main article and on apparently all others, it was transliterated as Quran instead of Qur'an - for the sake of regularity I think we should use that spelling as well. LikaTika (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Purdah

I'm trying to sort out where to fit in purdah. Suggestions other than a new section of it's own? It doesn't really belong in "history" and it's cultural, not religious. Ideas? LikaTika (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that would belong more with the Woman's right article then men's, as I think we will end up having a comparing men vs women article. TickTock2 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, however a right to be free from purdah that men maintain. However, men are still subject to the gender segregation of purdah. In any discussion of men's and women's rights you're comparing men and women, otherwise it's a discussion of another topic altogether. LikaTika (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The right to be "free" from something seems like a strange decision and can make this page infinitely long. TickTock2 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization of History Section

So far, it has been organized by country. As it becomes more detailed, we may want to merge it into groups (Asia, Europe and so on). Ideas? LikaTika (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be the best idea TickTock2 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Section "China"

I deleted information in the "China" section because the source does not support it . The the article "Complementarity and History Misrecognizing Gender in the Pacific" discusses gender inequality in Polynesia. Last time I checked, Polynesia was not China. Moreover, the article does not mention anything about polyandry being a right or being a right until 1960. The only paragraph that mentions anything about women having multiple partners is on page 266:

As there was a group of high ranking women, there was a class of low status male servants, some of whom were secondary husbands, clearly distinguished in status from the primary husband in an elite household. Polyandry was thus embedded in relations of domestic service and is misread if seen as a fundamentally conjugal relation. Male and female servants were me'ie in relation to other people. Between these servants and a group of other dependents who lived as 'tenants' on others' lands, there was an intermediate class of commoners who lived on their own land but had no servants. The fact that only men could eat what was produced by the other sex created a potential inequality which was only systematically realized among this group.

(I hope I'm not violating copyright laws by posting this paragraph here. If I am please feel free to remove the paragraph.)

This is clearly different from "whereas women maintained the right to have multiple husbands until 1960." Please be careful with sources because it takes quite a bit of time to correct descriptions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated sources for it showing that it happened in Tibet and with the Mouso people. TickTock2 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TickTock2, I undid you changes . I do not doubt that polyandry has been practiced by some women but you confuse practicing polyandry with having the legal right to practicing polyandry. In Saudi Arabia, for example, polygamy is legal see this OECD source but there is no indication that polyandry is. If you have information that polyandry was or is legal in some countries, please add it. But please do not insert information about elites in Polynesia or matriarchal societies where polyandry is practiced but not legal. This is WP:UNDUE and outside the scope if this article (although it might fit nicely in our article about Polyandry). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SonicYouth, With all due respect, you are wrong. You are not reading my sources, or even reading the Polyandry article, that you yourself mentioned

In Tibet, polyandry has been outlawed since the Chinese takeover of the area, so it is difficult to measure the incidence of polyandry in what may have been the world's most "polyandrous" society.

 :::As such, please stop undoing my changes if you have a problem discuss it here. TickTock2 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your very first source was the article "Complementarity and History Misrecognizing Gender in the Pacific". It said nothing about polyandry being legal in Polynesia at any time and I am tempted to think that you did not read the article. Your second source is this. Is says that the Muoso, a matriarchal society, practiced a form of polyandry, not that this form of polyandry was legal. Your third source says that polyandry has been practiced in some societies but not that it has been legal in those societies. It then goes on to say that Prince Peter of Denmark states that polyandry has been seen in a certain way by the Chinese and outlawed. If polyandry was legal in Tibet at some point, there should be no trouble finding a reliable source to support it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 

How about this one http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1994&m=12&p=28_1 It says that it was outlawed. It would have to be legal at some point in order for it to be legal would it not? TickTock2 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read more of the source I quoted earlier it says

Traditional villages were disbanded, people were sent to forced work camps and a strict sexual morality of monogamy an aboliation of premartial sex and a one child per family policy were instituted.

TickTock2 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the China/1982 edit in a minute, because it is not supported by the source. All the source confirms is that there was a 1982 law under which it was illegal - that doesn't mean there wasn't a previous set of laws under which it was also illegal. To support the statement as it is currently in the article, we need a source explicitly stating that it was legal before 1982 or explicitly stating that the law in 1982 was the first law regulating it, etc. Kevin (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you say would be supported then? How about if I add in this source? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=blc0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=CcwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2638,6668094&dq=polyandry+sri+lanka&h which says "In Tibet, Polandry was outlawed by the Chinese..." or this one http://books.google.com/books?id=yDbZ8TsKSJIC&pg=PA149&dq=polyandry+in+Tibet+outlawed&hl=en&ei=rtqNTqrQAcr50gGRmLET&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQuwUwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false which says "The Tibetan Marriage law of 1981 banned both polandrry and polygyny." I'd also question the source of the current article as I don't believe Cantonese Love are a very good source. I haven't been able to find a copy of the source as of yet, but I question it. TickTock2 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually found the source for the original statement, http://books.google.com/books?id=N70oG-jetxYC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=9622092845&source=bl&ots=TLZKosmXm4&sig=1q3eszvrtr-NPk4s_bNS9WfR1Ps&hl=en&ei=_uCNTo3xK6jw0gGLgak0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false . I haven't read the entire thing but I didn't see any search results for wife, concubines or anything of the sort. It's a English translation of poetry, I welcome anyone looking through if I missed anything. TickTock2 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the sentence "The Tibetan Marriage law of 1981 banned both polyandry and polygyny" in the book China's Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation. This is the third source that does not quite support what you claim.

We've been over this. If polyandry was legal in Tibet, there should be a reliable source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and every-time you have attempted to discredit my sources for no apparent reason. Please look at page 149, 3rd completely paragraph first sentence and it starts off with "The Tibetan Marriage law of 1981 banned both polandry and polygyny." and continues with "The practice greatly declined since the rebellion of 1959 and even more due to the Cultural Revolution". Another way to find it would be to use the Google search function. Unless you have any further objections I am going to edit the Chinese section and put it in as sourced, since the other source (the Cantonese Love songs) do not cite as sourced unless you found something I am missing. TickTock2 (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As Kgorman-ucb already explained to you we need a source explicitly stating that polyandry was legal before or explicitly stating that the law in was the first law regulating it. Simply stating that polyandry was not permitted under a specific does not necessarily mean that it was legal up until then. We've been over this, TickTock2.

I know precisely what is on page 149 (or, more accurately, on page 175) of the the book China's Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation. The quote "The Tibetan Marriage law of 1981 banned both polandry and polygyny" is nowhere to be found in that book. The book does not support the claim that polyandry has been legal until the Tibetan Marriage law of 1981. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sonic - do you have easy access to "China's minority cultures: identities and integration since 1912" written by Colin Mackerras, published in 1995? I think it may support TT's claim. I don't have full access to it right away but can probably get it on monday if you don't. Kevin (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. I cannot find the sentence "The Tibetan Marriage law of 1981 banned both polandry and polygyny" in the book. It does say (on page 175, for example) that the Tibetan Marriage law was introduced in 1981 and that under the law bigamy is not permitted. This does not mean that bigamy was legal until 1981 which would be relevant for this article. Frankly, this article has been in a dismal state for years and now that it's under reconstruction I think we need sources that directly and explicitly support what we say. If TickTock2 wants to say that polyandry was legal somewhere at some point, then he must provide a source that states that directly and explicitly.

Kevin, I'd be very grateful if you kept an eye on the article in the weeks to come. The rewrite is off to a bad start with sources being added that don't support the claims, tendentious wording, and reintroduction of MRA arguments (e.g., the section "Custody" that I hid yesterday). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been quite busy but I am intending to make another pass through the article removing inappropriate content according to the guidelines that I outlined a couple sections above. Relatedly: I'm still not sure how I feel about the proper scope of this article, can you look up a couple sections at the section I had about it and comment? Kevin (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this link - http://books.google.com/books?id=yDbZ8TsKSJIC&pg=PA149&dq=polyandry+in+Tibet+outlawed&hl=en&ei=rtqNTqrQAcr50gGRmLET&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQuwUwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false , and re-read. If you still doubt me please look here: http://i.imgur.com/qaZA9.jpg TickTock2 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that both Kevin and I are looking at Mackerras 1995 instead of Mackerras 2003. But that doesn't change things: The fact that bigamy was not permitted under Marriage Law of 1981 does not necessarily mean that it was legal up until 1981 unless the source states that this was the first law that regulated bigamy in Tibet. Was it legal all the time before 1981 or were there other regulations banning it in (...) which were then overturned? It would be really helpful if you could find a source stating that bigamy was legal in Tibet until 1981. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I linked you to the article, did you happen to look? I'd like to precede with this article in a good faith manner. I'd appreciate the same service. I've commented out the entire China section in history, because I believe the rest falls under fringe and the other comment is not supported by source. TickTock2 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan

I'm thinking there might be some confusing regarding zina and rape accusations. TickTock, if you'd like to revise it, I recommend you read a little further into your own sources, and even the ones available here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikaTika (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what you believe I am missing. I'm aware of the difference between the two, and as such she can file the complaint without the necessary evidence to convict, however if the court fails to convict (and they will without the necessary evidence). TickTock2 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't forget to sign your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TickTock2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually I sign, sorry for the oversight this time. Regarding zina and prosecution in Pakistan - of course, it is unlawful to have sexual congress outside of a married relationship. However, the laws against zina in Pakistan are used to protect men from rape accusations, not the other way around. A complaint against a man for rape will lead to a woman's prosecution for zina, and often hear death, not a prosecution against a man for rape, as it is nearly impossible to prove. LikaTika (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New pic?

I'm in favor of new pictures for this article, the only pic coming from SIF seems to give them undue weight. LikaTika (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I'll disagree on the simple fact that it was discussed earlier, it's not undue weight to mention them. P.S. Don't forget to sign. TickTock2 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Marriage

It is my understanding that a woman was entitled to support from an exhusband for the iddat, not lifetime. The Hindu Adopt. and Maint. Act only refers to married persons, see the link used at http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/hinduadoptionsact/s18.htm - it does have an exception for a woman who is still married but living separately. LikaTika (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's under marriage section and not under divorce. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Hindu_Adoptions_and_Maintenance_Act_%281956%29 for more details. TickTock2 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

the lede

I am removing the sentence "These rights are determined by many different ways, such as the cultural norms or laws of respective location." It makes a claim that is way too significant to state without disclaimer in the lede of an article. Whether or not human rights are culturally relative is a matter of significant contention and way out of the scope of this article to discuss in depth. Kevin (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to question that statement that it is outside of the scope of this article as we are address religious men's rights, which would be determined by cultural norms. Furthermore, if rights were not subjective of your current location, then why are we separating the rights by geographical location. Rights (at least in the fashion we are talking about in this article) are not absolute, and as such that should be acknowledged in the article. TickTock2 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Kevin's edit.

I disagree with TickTock2's claim that "religious men's rights" are "determined by cultural norms" but I do agree that the structuring of this article by country or region doesn't make much sense to me. Move the info from the section "China" to the section "Marriage", create a section "Property rights", "Military service", "Violence" etc. and move relevant info there. There are almost 200 independent nations, and we can't cover all of them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, can you explain that logic? That doesn't make any sense to me. How can the rights not be respective of the location, when we acknowledge that each area has their own laws. TickTock2 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The operative word is religious. There is a Catholic ban on ordaining women, i.e, the Catholic church gives men, but not women, the right to become priests. This ban exists regardless of your country of residence and the "cultural norms" that are found in that country. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to have an unqualified statement in the lede of an article that rights are culturally relative. Legal/statutory rights are relative but this article is not titled "Legal rights of men," it's titled "Men's rights." Even if no one has yet written about natural rights in this article, they are within the scope of this article. The lede is an overview of the subject as a whole, not an overview of the 50% of the article we've already written. We cannot have a lede that makes an incorrect statement about the subject as a whole. Feel free to rewrite the sentence in a way that is correct. As it stood, it was not. (Although if you do rewrite it, please include a source that supports it.) Kevin (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What other rights are we going to discuss then the "legal" rights? What's the scope of the article that you have in mind? As I see nothing of the sort being discussed currently. With all due respect, the article is about what the article is about, As it "currently" has to be right, and can be changed in the future to accommodate those changes right? Look at Women's rights as an example, they start with "In some places these rights are institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behavior, whereas in others they may be ignored or suppressed.", but yet they discuss other rights (natural rights) granting it's a small paragraph, but why would something similar not apply here? TickTock2 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between the lede used in the women's rights article, and the lede that used to be used here. I would be completely fine with something similar to the lede used in the women's rights article here assuming it was supported by a reliable source, but there is a massive difference between "in some places these rights are institutionalized whereas in others they are ignored or suppressed" (the women's rights lede) vs "your rights depend on where you are" (the former lede here.) They mean two completely different things. (Busy day, but I'll respond to other talk sections later.) Kevin (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede is completely unsupported and not a good summary of the article as it stands. It only cites a single, non-reliable source and needs a major overhaul. LikaTika (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you mostly. WND is not a reliable source for factual information (past consensus at the reliable source noticeboard holds this) although it can be an appropriate source for the views of the groups who speak there. But the lede to a major article like this should not be focused on the views of fringe groups (which is all WND can reliably represent.) I haven't changed it too much simply because I am having trouble coming up with an appropriate lede. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Has this article been vandalized?

I'm far from being an academic when it comes to the Men's Right's movement, but it seems that the History sections is entirely devoted to expressing the POV that Men's Rights are centered around stripping away womens' rights. Though sourced, it seems very POV, and is more in line with a misogynistic form of Patriarchy than what I've come to learn about the Men's Right's Movement.24.85.75.67 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is not quite the same thing as you just described: Misplaced Pages:Vandalism SarahStierch (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. A lapse in thought precipitated the approximation that one's concern for the authenticity of the views in this article would be abundantly apparent. Evidently, the err was on this IP address's part for which whose owner had omitted from memory that this is Misplaced Pages, and as such, quibbling over the correct terminology on a Discussion page is of utmost importance rather than a brief few moments wasted on the part of one more knowledgeable than they to peruse the item in question so as perchance to verify whether it (the item in question- that being the article unto which this Discussion page is therein attached) merited closer scrutiny. Again, my apologies dear sir or madame, and one shall resign oneself to the belief that the indicated response to the concern in question which was raised is a confirmation only of this article's most exquisitely balanced representation of the subject of which it speaks. Again, sorry for the trouble. I'mma just keep my fingers off the keyboard from now on. On the plus side, I'm learning tons about women's suffering at the hands of men! 24.85.75.67 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You should feel free to update the article to make it more complete, as long as you keep our editing policies in mind when doing so. Kevin (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It was more complete. A great deal of content relating to the issues men face in today's society, has been removed since I was last here and replaced with what I can only describe as a feminists depiction of men's rights over women (specifically) historically, culturally and religiously, strategically positioned prior to the legitimate complaints, that have since been watered down to nothing more than a skimming of the content, in what I can only assume is an attempt to garner apathy for the issues men face. I would very much describe removing a good percentage of this pages content and replacing it with very much the opposite intent (IE, changing the definition of men's rights from the movement for men's rights concerns to the phrase defining rights specific to men) as vandalism. It is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint. Aspects that have been removed include: Most of the alimony section, Education concerns, Employment concerns, False rape concerns, Custody Concerns (no mention of the Father's rights movement), Health Concerns Suicide, The vast majority of the violence section, Media Portrayal, Sentencing disparities and retirement. What is the point in adding content when it will get washed away, with moderator approval, by feminists that want to control the public discourse. User:Kratch 11 Oct. 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

It was longer before certainly, but the article was so problematic in its earlier form as to necessitate drastic removals. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are pretty much non-negotiable - a longer more complete article would be awesome, but the original article had far too many problems with those policies to fix. And no, we didn't change the definition of the article - the article is 'men's rights' - not 'men's rights activists'. I have no intention of silencing opposing viewpoints: feel free to add more information to this article that is compliant with our content policies (and please understand that neutrality is a fundamental tenet of the encyclopedia.) Kevin (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was problematic, I suspect, largely due to a difference of perspective on what the article contained. The content originally provided for this article was in regards to men's rights, as in the activism (the male version of feminism), as defined in the article upon creation (22:05, 18 December 2006‎ Severa..."Men's rights is a stream in the men's movement."). You, or others like yourself, have defined men's rights as the concept, which is separate from the activism. This difference in perception has caused you to feel much of the content is inappropriate and off topic, when it was not. The reasonable solution would have been to rename the article to men's rights activism, or something akin, and creating a new page for men's rights as you define it. Instead, this page was gutted, leaving it's original content and intent abandoned, despite feminism being granted a page of it's own. This is why the actions perpetrated on this page have been defined as "silencing". The opposing view comes from the content that has filled the page since, with such comments as "outlawing cruelty to women by their husband or his relatives, are being fought" (which has already been addressed), "men maintained total legal rights over women, as though they were children" (is the "like children" necessary? or is it an ideological jab at men?), the entire England Section is a discussion about a man's power over a woman (largely from a feminist perspective), and the islam's section "This is opposed to the women's awrah which can change depending on the circumstances" (this has no baring on men's rights, but is instead an opportunity to note double standards against women. this line is inappropriate for a "neutral" article). Furthermore, the vast majority of the content is written in an advantages men have over women perspective, rather than a right's men have and don't have perspective, irrespective of women. That particular feminist narrative combined with the removal rather than the changing of name/position of the original article makes this page appear more of an ideological tool against men then a "neutral" article.

That said, I will begin adding content shortly, once time becomes available to me (so as not to be simply a troublemaker). I will include additions such as California's current law openly discriminating (as in, they acknowledge it isn't constitutional, yet they proceeded anyways) against men that allows female felons (but not male) to be released early. The recent policy changes to post secondary facilities that have been described as an assault on due process and equal protection laws. CPS unwillingness to even contact, let alone place a child with the child's father when removed from the mothers custody. Mexican Law which states a mother is automatically granted custody of any child under 7 years of age. Indian law which grants mothers custody automatically, period. VAWA STOP funding guidelines which specifically states programs benefiting men (or children) must also benefit women in order to qualify for funding. A US council for boys to men has been waiting on approval for almost a year, despite near instant approval for a council of women and girls a few years earlier. I will not be surprised to experience a serious push back on these issues. We'll have to see. Kratch (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At least some of the content you are complaining about (like the 'outlawing cruelty' bit) has actually been in the article all along, heh. You are right that a separate article about MRA's is probably warranted. I considered just renaming the article, but little of the content would have been salvageable even doing that - the sourcing was godawful, it was riddled with original research, and it was generally poorly written. If I had renamed it, 80% of the content would still have had to be removed. The article as it stands currently is hardly good - but for the most part at least meets our core content policies, which is more than can be said about the original. (Also - I'm too lazy to find the section link again, but somewhere on this page I outlined the general criteria I was using to remove or keep sections the last time I went over the article - take a look at it, it'll give you a good idea of how to write and source content in a way that will make other people unlikely to remove it. Coincidentally, there are definitely some recent additions that don't hold too well to those standards - I'm going to be going through the article on Tuesday-ish and either fixing or removing any recent additions that have problems.) Kevin (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

While the line regarding cruelty may have already existed, whoever deleted the sentence leading into it changed the context by doing so. The line leading into it, (IE "The Violence Against Women Act in America is being vehemently opposed by rights groups for discriminating against men.") clearly states the opposition is due to discrimination against men, and by removing it, the context changes from opposition for a justified reason, to simple opposition (as a dedicated editor, I'm sure you are aware of this concept). This is what I'm talking about when describing using this page as an ideological tool. I could understand taking out Vehemently. I could understand requiring a source. But deleting a defining line and leaving it's proceeding sentence without proper context... that's underhanded if done for ideological reasons, or, if performed accidentally, demonstrates a significant deficiency in editing skills and basic language skills. Kratch (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't argue about feminism of whether or not it believes in equality since after all aren't Men's rights supposed to fight against feminism for believing that they don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.253.165 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 October 2011

Hello again! We actually have a policy that states that Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk pages are not forums to discuss or argue about subjects related to the Misplaced Pages pages. You can learn more about that policy at this link: WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks for your understanding and interest in Misplaced Pages! SarahStierch (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hi everyone, I archived a large portion of this talk page, which makes it more manageable. I advise others to do the same as needed. Just a reminder for those interested in this subject and/or contributing to the article to follow the Misplaced Pages policy about how to use talk pages. Please visit Misplaced Pages:TPOC#How_to_use_article_talk_pages to learn more! Thanks so much and for your contributions and interest in Misplaced Pages! SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight on rights over women

I'd like to discuss what I believe to be undue weight on women's rights in general in this article. It was brought up (although might have been poorly done), and I think it's a great point. We need more facts relating to actual men's rights instead of just on women's right. I've been trying to add where I can, but it is being undone by several edits. I'd like to bring this up for discussion, what does everyone think? TickTock2 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we do. Please feel free to add sections that are relevant, well sourced, and in compliance with our other content policies. Adding more material is still on my to-do list, I just haven't gotten around to it yet (I have a rather lengthy to-do list.) I outlined the criteria I use to judge additions to this page on this talk page section earlier on this page. (My criteria are not definitive or authoritative or anything, but I think they are a pretty good facsimile of Misplaced Pages's general content policies. If we disagree about the appropriateness of a section, we can of course discuss it and hopefully come to an amicable resolution.) Kevin (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.

• Ireland discussions when women are allowed to inherit. This is not relevant to men's rights.
• England The sentence containing "this includes almost all of her legal rights". This is not relevant to men's rights. It's wording also implies it was the women's duty to protect and provide for her husband (which is directly contrary to the wiki source). Furthermore, the entire sections "source" links to another wiki article, which I thought failed as a verified source, making this entire section unsourced.
• Pakistan A man not being accused of rape is not a man's right, it is simply that a law did not exist to protect women. This is not relevant to men's rights.
• Rights according to religious tradition Islam. Includes at the end of a sentence "but women are not allowed to have multiple husbands". Is this part necessary? The need to compare is not relevant to "men's rights in a social context". Men can marry multiple wives, that's a man's right, whether women can or not would only be relevant if we were discussing differences in rights or the concerns regarding the loss of or inequity of those rights. I could see it's relevance elsewhere, but not for this section... This same argument follows through to the second paragraph, the sentence involving "This is opposed to the women's ....". A woman's awrah is not relevant. I also note the second paragraph has no citations.
• Christianity Is that a right? or something else? Furthermore, no citations.
• Spousal Notification laws section is written in a purely female-centric manner

--Kratch (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regency England/England and Coveture

A couple issues surrounding this, Coveture is history, it is not current Marriage law and does not flow into current marriage law, unless there's more sources supporting it that I am missing. I am going to edit it to go back up to the "Regency England" section. I also question why my edit is reverting it to Regency England, as we have not separated any other county into "time frames" as Regency England is only a certain period in English History. Furthermore, I am going to add more content from the source to the English Section. TickTock2 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your edit looks mostly fine, but please restore the Blackstone source. Blackstone was formerly used to source both sections that you consolidated, but you took it out. It's hard to imagine a more ironclad/authoritative source on english law then Blackstone, so it's worth retaining (and definitely better than no source...) Kevin (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My Apologizes, I meant to include the source, but I've re-added it. Your right, there isn't much better source TickTock2 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Section

I am not familiar enough with editing process to comment out the last line "498a in India, outlawing cruelty to women by their husband or his relatives, are being fought by groups such as Save Indian Family Foundation." without deleting it completely. Which contains a subjective interpretation of the stated goals, with only another wiki article as the source. The line establishes the opposition as being towards the "outlawing the right to be cruel to women...", which is nether factual nor supported, even by the wiki article link, which states it is in opposition to the abuse of those laws. If this page is not permitted to be an ideological tool, then that should apply all around. Kratch 22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can comment something out by placing <!-- at the start of the section you wish to comment out, and --> at the end of the section. You don't have to comment everything out though, you can just delete it. Nothing is permanently lost, it can be retrieved from the history of the page. (I often do just comment sections out when I'm not sure if I want to rewrite and reinclude them or just remove them, but it's not at all necessary.) Kevin (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A citation was added for the line "Many women's shelters will assist male victims of domestic abuse" that provides a link to a small, VERY small, list of MEN's shelters. This fails to demonstrate ether that women's shelters offer male victims services, nor that it is many of them that offer such. In fact, I would suggest it demonstrates quite the opposite, and that "many" should be replaced with "very few". Kratch (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that a several page document with links to resources all over the world is not "very few" but rather is a good, basic international citation for resources that are available. Additionally, due to the nature of charity work, such as domestic violence shelters, many of them are extremely localized, which makes getting a comprehensive list of all the resources for a given area difficult. For instance, there is no comprehensive world wide list of soup kitchens, but a short list with resources provide leads to a larger number of resources that are regionally, rather than international or nationally based. Domestic Violence shelters are most likely similar. TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And I would argue that a page that links to a small handful of largely MEN's or generic abuse (not women's shelters, as claimed) shelters per COUNTRY, is actually an insignificant number, given last I checked, Toronto had 23 women's shelters (not just resources, SHELTERS) on it's own, more than any single country on that list. I would also add that, many "women's" shelters are provided government funding, so shouldn't be difficult to find. If they are, that should be of concern to people, but should not be an excuse for a failure to provide a source for a claim.Kratch (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has this page been changed?

It used to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights&oldid=449138521 Now we have a history section which does not talk about the history of 'men's rights' but instead talks about social laws from ancient times.

Also the Marriage and divorce area has been totally vandalised.

It has gone from this: The right to marry or not has historically been more the right of men than of women. The rights that each partner in marriage enjoy has mostly been determined by other rights such as the right to safety and health. However, due to legal and religious dogma, the right to make decisions and take actions that influence both partners particularly outside of the domestic realm have been with the male partner. Together with the right to marry comes the right to divorce. This is a right available to either of the sexes. With the right to divorce, parental rights come into play. As such the rights of the male to retain custody of children and have access to his offspring, have been minimal. The reasoning for this has mainly been rooted in the ability of the female to provide adequate nurturing and support to offspring, especially during their early development. However, members of the fathers' rights movement state that the outcome of divorce is overly one-sided, divorce is initiated by mothers in more than two-thirds of cases – especially when children are involved, and that divorce provides advantages for women, such as preferred custody of the children and financial assistance from their fathers in the form of child support payments.

To this: Legal and religious tradition dictated that rights to make decisions and take actions that influence both partners have lain with the male

I think someone biased against the men's rights movement has totally defaced the page, and before anyone scrolls down to the issues that face men (custody rights, circumcision etc) they will see this:

In pre-Christian Ireland, men maintained total legal rights over women, as though they were children. Additionally, only men were normally able to inherit unless a woman died without any male relatives. In that case she was able to leave her property to a surviving female relative, a legal right that was otherwise unheard of in 8th century Europe.

What a joke of an article it is now.

Edit: I just want to say, while the example given above about the ownership of Women in Celtic Ireland is indeed a concern, I feel it is a concern perhaps better suited to a women's rights page rather than a men's rights page.

79.97.224.17 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be putting a request for semi-protection, permanent if I can get it, on this to avoid such politically motivated editing in the future. The article has been reverted to its former state for now.Hermiod (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Hermiod I don't think any protection is really needed for the article at this time. It's rare the article has been vandalized or changed in any dramatic manners for quite sometime due to the team of volunteers working on it. I think we can avoid the protection status unless it becomes rampant, and it hasn't. :) SarahStierch (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hermiod for the change, there is probably much room for improvement as an article but I felt it's tone was very anti-men's rights generally. Especially the history section 79.97.224.17 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I question the usefulness of a full revert. such as

Very little has been done to formalize what men's rights are, or to protect these rights. With the increased focus on the rights of women and children, some believe that some of the rights of men have been devalued and overturned. An example of this is the limitations that have been placed on the parental rights of men over their offspring as a result of the rights awarded to women. without a source, or another example being bias; She must have "no recent workforce experience" but she can easily qualify for this well after the loss of her partner by going through a period of underemployment Also, I must ask is this a page for Men's Rights or Men's Rights Movement? Are we going to clarify what we are talking about, as surely "Men's Rights" doesn't have a structure to it. TickTock2 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the relevance of the history section? By all means tidy up the article but what it was this morning was a total mess and alot of it had nothing to do with men's rights 79.97.224.17 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Men's Rights Movement or Men's Rights? As I don't see the mess you are referring to. I think a full revert was unnecessary and introduced more NPOV issues, I'm going to revert your revision, I also object you calling it defacement as well. TickTock2 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Im talking about Men's rights. And I'm not surprised you don't see the mess I was referring too, as it was reverted to how it should have been. And frankly, it was anything but neutral. Most if it gave the impression that there are no issues facing men.79.97.224.17 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm double posting here and for that I apologise, but I get the impression TickTock2 that you are confused about what Men's Rights is. I think Men's rights is more about the issues in the legal and modern social systems that sideline men (in other words, men's rights are the concerns of men's rights activists), and is not an Encyclopedia of ALL the rights one has for being a man. Ancient Greek laws have nothing to do with men's rights whatsoever. Obviously the article has to be neutral, thus it is important it does not read like an advert for the men's rights movement. That is my take on it anyway. 79.97.224.17 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You question the usefulness of a full revert? I question the usefulness of all the changes you've made over the last few months to utterly gut the article, changing it from an article about men's rights to a piece of drivel that has more information on the perceived injustices women have faced in the distant past than it does about men's rights issues today. All you did was sneak around and remove every bit of information that was in the article a few months ago, replacing it with drivel in order to deface it. A full revert would be far superior to keeping what's here. Maybe next time you shouldn't vandalize the page, instead taking some time to deal with any issues you find. But we both know you are politically motivated here, and that's why you destroyed the content of the article on men's rights.Jayhammers (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The right thing to do would be to revert to the version before the defacement, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Men%27s_rights&oldid=455508406 From there, editors could work on correcting any perceived violations of Misplaced Pages rules, rather than scrapping the whole thing and replacing it with rubbish.Jayhammers (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting the reversion as soon as I post this. The version of the article that was reverted to is rife with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problems, as well as a desperate lack of reliable sources. It also had some problems with just straight up misrepresentation of sources. If you think that the article is unbalanced as it currently stands, you can fix that by adding relevant content cited to reliable sources. It's unacceptable to revert to a version that violates so many policies, especially when the problems have been extensively discussed on this page. Kevin (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't just think the article is unbalanced, it actually is totally biased against Men's Rights. The entire history section has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of the page. The Divorce section has only one sentence: In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man has the right to divorce his wife via text messaging. What has this got to do with men's rights exactly? The Marriage section is this: In India, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956) a wife is entitled to be provided for the rest of her life by the husband regardless of them living together or not. If the wife is widowed the father-in-law is required to support the widow, assuming she has no other way to support herself.

What is the purpose of quoting Indian law and nothing else? The first two thirds of the page has nothing to do with men's rights, and more to do with how men have it easy compared to women. We need to not only ADD relevant content with reliable sources, we also need to remove all of the useless trivia which has nothing to do with the subject. Whether or not the other version of this page was better, from a sources/neutrality perspective, this version is practically empty of relevant information on the subject.

That's the typical tactic used by devious Misplaced Pages editors. They'll remove all the work that was previously done on a page, then replace it with a small amount of drivel, and when you try to revert it back so at least the page has some meaningful content, they'll tell you that you need to rebuild it from scratch instead. A reasonable approach would have been for the editors to find sources for anything that was unsourced, and add the citations. Instead, they'd rather utterly gut the entire article and replace it with drivel, and then demand that WE go back and re-write the whole thing. Of course, if we do try to re-write it to be neutral, they will fight us the whole way. The end result is that they defaced the page when no one was paying attention, and it will remain this way.Jayhammers (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They did the same thing with the Domestic Violence page, where feminists refused to allow any citations that showed that women commit domestic violence at least as often as men. There is really no arguing against them, because no matter what you do or who you go to, they have already decided what they want the article to look like, and they will scramble for Misplaced Pages rules that appear to back them up. If it comes to a dispute through moderation, the feminist bias of Misplaced Pages editors will ensure that the misandric lies remain and that the page remains defaced. And when you talk about these things like I do, you'll actually get warned for it. It's pretty funny, actually. In all honestly, I'm surprised they waited this long to deface the page. It shouldn't be surprising, considering how they treated Thomas Ball. Also see the following for more information on what I've been through: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jayhammers http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jayhammers Jayhammers (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You have basically two options here. You can continue to act silly-ly and eventually end up getting blocked for violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, or you can choose to add content to this article based on reliable sources and make the article better and more balanced. Kevin (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I have no fear of being blocked for violating policies here. It's irrelevant to me. Jayhammers (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Block me by all means, I'm by no means that interested in editing on wikipedia, but I would be interested to find out where I made a personal attack, and where I was uncivil. I have provided reasons for my concerns and I would like to state it here clearly that NONE of what I have complained about has been directed at the authors or editors. My anger is at the article itself, and the fact it was reverted to a tragic version for no real good reason. The article has nothing to do with the subject. And I absolutely believe that is because it is because of a handful of biased and politically motivated editors defacing the page. Keep on quoting policies at me though, for all these rules I am not breaking. 79.97.224.17 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is actually disgusting to see this page defaced so obviously. 79.97.224.17 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be locked. As a response to a request for a citation, I provided one and change the wording to a direct quote from the article I sited. In response to this, a list of frivolous "citation needed" request were put up for each and every point made, despite the fact each point is part of a quote from the article provided. This can only be described as an attempt to trivialize the content (as minor as it was) by drowning it in citation needed flags, making it appear unsourced. This is the kind of ideological behaviour that caused you people to tear it down in the first place. And it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in rebuilding the page. Kratch (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Then revert and explain in the reasons why the citation needed tags aren't needed. If I put them up in error, please, correct them, since as I saw it, I only saw a citation for the final claim rather than all of them. ] (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Or I can point it out as an example of an Ideological attempt to trivialize the sources added by ignoring them and frivolously flagging content as citation needed, making the article look unsourced, causing the very issues we're seeing with removing content due to being "unsourced". My point is, this article should be locked, so the average ideologue can't vandalize it further, and so the rest of us can get a good handle on which official editors are themselves ideologically driven, rather than the neutral editors they require of others. Until that happens, this article will never be stable.Kratch (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith, as is stated in the Misplaced Pages Principles.--TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the previous edits made by a small number of users, it looks like they were made by people with a political axe to grind. Let me be clear, the purpose of this article is to describe the areas in which advocates of men's rights believe men do not recieve equal treatment to women in the same way feminism addresses areas that impact women. It is not there to either debunk nor support those claims. It is also not there for those opposed to men's rights to express their views. There are those opposed to the men's rights movement, Misplaced Pages is not the place for them to express that opposition nor is it to be used by those who support the movement as a soapbox. Hermiod (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear: you are wrong. The purpose of this article is absolutely not to describe the areas in which men's rights activists believe that men do not receive equal treatment. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. It's perfectly fine for us, imo, to mention men's rights activists in the article about men's rights, but they should not and will not be the central focus of the article.Kevin (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From the link you provided: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" I would argue that this page is an article devoted to those views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.101.104 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Except, it's not. Someone could certainly create an article titled something like Men's rights activism which could be appropriately focused on the views of MRA's (that would still require reliable sourcing and balance) but "men's rights" is a very broad topic with extensive academic coverage that is in no way restricted to simply MRA's. Kevin (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Except, as by looking at the original page creation, that was the very intent of this pages beginnings. This page was CREATED for the purpose of describing the areas in which advocates of men's rights believe men do not recieve equal treatment to women in the same way feminism addresses areas that impact women. As mentioned previously, you describe the definition of "men's rights" differently than the original author, and as such, this page should have been renamed to something you could agree on, but still maintained the original authors intent. Instead it was stripped apart and can't even maintain what little it has due to constant edits and frivolous citation demands. Unlike women's rights and feminism, which have different words for each item, "men's rights" applies to both the concept of civil and human rights as applied to men (your definition), as well as the movement to maintain and balance those rights (the original intent of the article). This is in the same manner as the word "probe", which is both a tool used to investigate as well as the action of using that tool. As mentioned by others, the action of stripping this pages original intent from the article, without replacing that intent in a new article (I know one editor is writing an article, but it's barely begun and this vandalism is months in the doing) is the significant cause of the current frustration. I also note, the original editor who added the NPOV flag noted most of the content was OK by him, he just had a concern with a few issues, including weasel wording (IE the use of "some people" etc) which also happens to be rampant in the feminism article, but without complaint. All this combined leads to believe that this is an ideological attempt to silence any attempt to even acknowledge men have civil rights concerns.Kratch (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The page as originally written, besides for drastic problems with undue/fringe issues, didn't follow any of the rest of our content policies, either. It was rife with original research, improper synthesis, and had very few acceptable sources. Even if we had renamed it, 80% of the content would have to have been removed. Kevin (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion to you would be to do the following, if you have the time to dedicate, and are willing. First try to talk things out and come to a consensus on the talk page. If that fails (which it probably will, since you're dealing with ideologues who do not believe men can be discriminated against) read up on dispute resolution here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Follow the guidelines there. In the end, you will likely be forced to submit a request for mediation, which in all actuality will probably go against you, since most Misplaced Pages editors are against men's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation But hey, if you feel like it, go ahead and try.Jayhammers (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to create a new page named "Mens Rights Movement" containing the content this page used to house? I think that would resolve the issue since the problem seems to be with the definition of the original page.96.52.101.104 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that since the claim is that "men's rights" is a different entity than the "men's rights movement", just as "women's rights" is a different entity than "feminism", that a separate "men's rights movement" page must be created to detail the "men's rights movement" (which is not the same as the "men's movement"). I have created such a page.Jayhammers (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A page about the men's rights movement is absolutely fine. It needs to use reliable sources, and needs to avoid original research (as well of needs to conform to the rest of our content policies.) The original content of this page did not conform to our content policies whatsoever, and cannot be used as a baseline for a page on the MRM. Many of the problems were detailed in earlier sections of this talk page. Given the extent of the problems with it, I would suggest that anyone who wants to create an article on the men's rights movement do so from scratch, not try to use the earlier version of this page as a base. (If you want to use the earlier version of this page as a base, draft it in your userspace, and do NOT move it to the main article space until the problems talked about earlier on this page are fixed.) Kevin (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point you are missing, Kevin, is that the actions taken were not the responsible ones to take, given the infractions. Regardless of your definition of men's rights, the intent of the original article was with regards to the movement. What you effectively did, was walk in and delete the feminism page, simply to write one about the basic civil rights women have (Yes, I realize women's rights already exists, it's an analogy). This would have been unacceptable, yet it is precisely what was done here. Can you not see that, regardless of the infraction you believe the old article contained, the solution enacted was irresponsible and inappropriate? There were other ways of dealing with the previous infractions that would not have resulted in such a destructive end result, and would have left the articles original intent intact, as it should have been. Kratch (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If the feminism page had the same number/degree of problems that this one did, I would have done the same thing. If the only problem had been the intent of the article not matching the name, I would have just renamed it. I did not see any way to repair the severity of problems present in this article with any reasonable amount of effort, even with a rename. If you look at the edit history of this article - for the most part sections were removed piece by piece with an explanation of what was problematic about the section. If you see an easier way to repair some of the removed content to be in line with the policies that it previously violated (or even if you don't see an easier way but are willing to spend sixty or seventy hours rewriting it) you are more than welcome to do so - although a lot of it would probably be better off at another article dealing specifically with men's rights activism. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The feminism page does have a number of issues, not least of which is the fact it is locked, it contains a number of significant unsourced claims (some of which I've listed on it's talk page), it is rife with weasel wording, and contains virtually no content of the criticism of feminism and feminists, which is a quickly growing discussion (in the real world), leaving the paged biased in feminism's favor. --Kratch (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim this article had problems, but you have not pointed them out, and you did not engage in discussion and reach a consensus before removing major sections of the article. Please specify exactly what Misplaced Pages violations were present and where, with corresponding difference reports of your changes. If you cannot, I propose a reversion to the original version of the article from a month ago before yours and others' changes which never had consensus. Jayhammers (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jay If you go through the article history you will see that the majority of article contributors explain their reasons for removing content and often cite policy. If you review the talk page (above and archives) you will find more material as well. There really is no reason for Kevin or other contributors to have to rehash this because some folks came in a little late after gathering men's rights pals up at Reddit. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the men's rights page discussed the men's rights movement for years before the last month in which these editors slid in and decided to change the very meaning of the topic, opposing the widely accepted meaning of "men's rights". There is no reason that the hard work over the years of many other editors should have to be rehashed just because some vandals came along in the last month and decided to throw it all away and replace it with unrelated material.Jayhammers (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, not only was there very little discussion in comparison to the vast number of changes that were made, but any discussion that did take place was between the vandals and... other vandals. People not familiar with the men's rights movement, although it is not popular, do not get to decide what the movement is about. It is the members of the movement who do. And in all actuality, the original page provided plenty of documentation for all claims made.Jayhammers (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As Sarah said, most of the issues are discussed in preceding sections of this talk page already. You have already been warned to stop making personal attacks - please stop labeling me a vandal, thanks. If you continue to breach WP:NPA you will be blocked. I don't really care one way or another if you do silly things and get yourself blocked, but if you want to actually improve this page you would be well advised to stop. Kevin (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please limit discussion to the contents of the article, not the editors who have worked on it. Any further personal attacks will result in a 24 hour block. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk about the contents.

For instance, why does the Men's Rights page now have extensive discussion of historical facts, i.e. "in X country 2000 years ago, only men could vote."?

Why has the page removed the content about actual men's rights issues, such as the fact that men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime (in USA, Canada, England, etc.)?

Why has the page removed content about how domestic violence is equally suffered by men yet the public discourse attempts to promote the lie that only men are batterers?

Please answer these questions, thanks. Celdaz (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just back, was in transit the whole day. I did not write the new contents of this page for the most part, and have not looked at most of it in great detail. Historical detail is indubitably appropriate for this page - it's not just a summary of modern issues in America - but if you feel particular included historical details are inappropriate to include, feel free to bring up specific issues. "Actual men's rights issues" suggests to me that you may be too involved in this issue to edit this page from a WP:NPOV; 'actual men's rights issues' at least as far as we are concerned are those that are discussed explicitly in reliable sources. The previous content of this page was not adequately sourced, so it was removed. The entire domestic violence section was removed because in it's original form it contained improper WP:OR (especially WP:Synthesis.) If you have not already done so please read WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:RS as well as the earlier sections of this page (which talk a lot about why particular things were removed.) Kevin (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, the number of Wikiproject Feminism members editing this page suggests much more of a NPOV problem than anything else. There are a considerable number of areas where feminism and men's rights are seen as being in conflict, which leads me to question the mentality and the reasons behind people with a specific interest in feminism editing this page, especially to remove text on areas such as domestic violence. There is far, far too much discussion of rights men do have in specific countries as opposed to rights they do not have and where rights they do have are not enforced in across the world in this article. The fact, for instance, that sharia law allows men to divorce their wives by text message has nothing to do with the greater problems men face with divorce. Hermiod (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermiod, you must stop speculating on motives. If you have any specific edits that trouble you, then complain about them with the details. Broad insinuations such as these will get you nowhere but trouble, and don't help the encyclopedia one little bit. Slp1 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Content to add

The bellow is content to be added to the page. It addresses men's rights (this section, specifically equal protection under the law) and how those rights are being eroded. If you feel that is not relevant to a "men's rights" section, I would very much like to hear the reasoning for it. I have not added it myself, as I suspect my efforts would then be vandalized (I suspect it will get vandalized anyways, but I'm curious to see how the editors choose to react to this content, as well as the inevitable removal of it. More will come, particularly if I don't feel it will be a waste of time.Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The erosion of male rights:

Equal treatment and protection under the law:

Sentencing Disparities:

The United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibit the consideration of race, sex, and national origin in sentencing decisions (II.C.ii.(1) U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10. http://www.ussc.gov/Legal/Primers/Primer_Departure_and_Variance.pdf ). In his Study, David Mustard found unexplained race and gender disparities favoring whites and women. Women fared better than men in all specifications, and the gender disparity was usually much larger than the estimated racial disparities. (David B. Mustard, Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts, 44 J. L. & ECON. 285 (2001).) ( Source Page7 section 2.1 http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=alea&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Fsearch%3Fgcx%3Dc%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dsentencing%2B%2Bdisparities%2Bby%2Bgender#search=%22sentencing%20disparities%20by%20gender%22 ). Gender effects are found in both drug and non-drug offenses and greatly exceed the effects of race and ethnic. Unlike race and ethnic discrimination, the evidence is more consistent that part of this gap is due to different treatment of offenders based on their gender. Sentence lengths for men are typically 25 to 30 percent longer for all types of cases. Additional analyses show that the effects are present every year (Source Section “C.2” page 127 http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Projects/Miscellaneous/15_Year_Study/chap4.pdf ).Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite U.S.S.G. prohibiting gender in consideration for sentencing departures, California Lawmakers have implemented a policy to release female felons who are parents, convicted of non-violent, non-sexual and non-child related crimes, which they have deemed “primary caregivers” despite not having custody due to being in jail. "In crafting the bill, her (California Sen. Carol Liu) intent was to single out female inmates with children," Oakes said. But that could not be done because of a constitutional ban against gender-based discrimination. So the phrase "primary caregiver" was added to the bill. Men remain ineligible for this program, regardless of their primary caregiver status, as the program is not offered to male inmates at this time and with no plans for the foreseeable future (source http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y2hzI1vWl1M#t=72s )(sources for all of it http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prison-home-20110913,0,6210913.story , http://www.newsytype.com/11335-california-mothers-in-jail/ , )Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A United Kingdom Women’s Justice Taskforce, has proposed Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences. The Ministry of Justice welcomed the report and said it was carefully considering the recommendations. (Sources, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066 , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/report-proposes-closing-womens-prisons-2293495.html , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394739/Short-jail-terms-women-axed-prisons-closed-report-says.html ). The Taskforce consists of senior police officers, magistrates, economists and penal reformers and was appointed by the Prison Reform trust, which has no such taskforce for Male or Men’s Justice (source http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ProjectsResearch/Women/WomensJusticeTaskforce ) and no such proposal has been made for male inmates.Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In India, Adultery is a criminal Offence, but only for men who have sexual relations with a married woman. (Section 497 of Indian Penal Code). Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

V.A.W.A. (Violence against women act) Funding for S.T.O.P. (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Was originally created for use by women’s programs, and has deemed applications ineligible for further review due the proposed programs focus on men, even citing “Ineligible Activities number one “Programs that focus on children and/or men”” (http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/VAWArejectDallas1202.pdf). In 1994, an addition was included stating that VAWA could not be used to discriminate against men . 2009 VAWA/STOP funding for Hawaii (and other states) states “Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women.” and “Male victims may receive services under a STOP Program funded project as long as the agency’s primary focus is on efforts to stop violence against women.”. (Page 24, Section 2 Service Specifications, I. Introduction, G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp7411265074918.pdf ). This results in a condition where male and child victim programs must also aid female victims, but the reverse need not apply. Kratch (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a hurry, so apologies if I have missed something in your posts, but as far as I can see the main problem is this material is mostly lacking reliable secondary sources that discuss these issues specifically in the context of men's rights. I sadly only have internet access for a few minutes currently as I am in transit, but I'll be back around later to look over this stuff again. But in the interim please read WP:RS, especially the section about synthesis. As an example of what I mean, looking at the section about the UK women's justice taskforce - there are a number of reliable sources in the content, but absolutely none of the reliable sources explicitly link the issue to men's rights. Although the sources are adequate to confirm that the facts as described exist (mostly,) to put a paragraph about that in a men's rights article without reliable sources specifically linking the issue to men's rights is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Kevin (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is the ideological drive to silence opposing viewpoints by forcing your opposition to jump through hoops. We aren't allowed to post sources that represent men's rights movements, but we also need to present sources that talk about these issues as concerns about men's rights... without involving the men's rights movement because it is, in your view, a "fringe" movement. And you honestly expect to be taken seriously as an editor, particularly a "neutral" one? You are an intern. I would be interested in knowing who you report to, in order to get their opinion on your conduct with regards to this article.Kratch (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on article content, not attacking editors. Any further threats will be considered harassment and result in a 24 hour block. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I provided article content. It was rejected "in a hurry", based on criteria that has yet to be required of the content that HAS been added already (that just happens to fit in with the feminist ideology), Criteria that has openly been rejected as "giving undue weight to a "fringe" movement" and criteria that has, subtly, already been provided, given the topic at hand was sentencing disparities based on gender, and was a continuation of the paragraphs that came before. Of course, this last point can be attributed to Kevin having "missed it" because he was "in a hurry", but given the heated debate of the ideological bent this article is feeling, combined with the fact I added the content in the discussion section, so that people would have time to critique it properly, his choice to reject it without due time spent is in bad form and reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages Foundation as a whole, given he is an employee. Your welcome to take this comment as a threat, to ban me for 24 hours. (and if you are Kevin's supervisor, I am very much interested in your opinion of his conduct regarding this article). --Kratch (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To deal with content issues first: You are perfectly able to provide sources written by MRM/MRA people, as long as they meet our normal guidelines for reliable sources. WP:Undue does mean that the entire article cannot represent solely MRA positions, but it does not completely rule out using MRA sources as long as they meet our normal guidelines for reliable sources. Taking an item by item look at the portion of your content that I was specifically looking at: the BBC article doesn't mention men, the Independent article doesn't mention men, the Daily Mail article doesn't mention men, and the PRT snippet doesn't mention men. Since no source you provided mentions men's rights/men, it's covered by WP:SYNTHESIS, which is one of our core content policies. These policies are not something I made up just because I don't like you - they're the codified best practices of our community which enjoy widespread consensus. To deal with non-content issues: for clarification, I am not a paid employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and none of my edits are in anything resembling in an official capacity. Please make your future posts about content issues, thanks. Making silly threats is not going to make it any more likely that the article returns to its previous state. Kevin (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright Kevin, please explain some things here:

-What relevance does the fact that in Ancient Greece, men who served in the military were full citizens have to do with Men's Rights? As well as all the other historical facts.

-Why have actual men's rights issues, such as the fact that men get longer sentences and are less likely to be acquitted for the same crime as women, removed from the page?

-Why is the domestic violence section, which has hundreds of studies proving that domestic violence is equally committed by women (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm), removed from this page?

Those are just a few questions, but please answer them to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celdaz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Celdaz (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting that the editor SarahStierch, discuss the edits she performed (is performing) and has concerns over (beyond minor grammar issues) related to the content I provided in this talk section for discussion prior to my posting into the article.--Kratch (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kratch! Thanks for expanding the article. I just wanted to clean up some of the grammar, and of course we do need some citations and better clarity on some of the contributions you're adding. I don't have a lot of time right now to take a close look at all of your sources, I did notice that one was a letter from a men's rights advocate and that explains why the "cherry picking" template was placed on the top of the article talk page. I figure, since the situation about VAWA must be notable enough for you to include it it'll be easy for contributors, like us, to find a neutral non-related source (when we can, we prefer non-related sources, like news sources, etc, just keeps it neutral and scholarly :) ) to replace it with. If you visit the "View history" tab you'll be able to learn a bit more about my edits, I'm only working to improve it! :) Also, we actually DON'T capitalize every word in section headings. That's actually not proper in most scholarly writing unless one is referring to a specific title (i.e. book, artwork, person). I know it can be easy to want to capitalize things that should be stressed, but that's not how it is. Thank again for your contributions. SarahStierch (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify, was the "letter from a men's rights activist" that you are referring to as "cherry picked", the rejection letter from Robert P Neff, Manager of Criminal Justice programs, regarding a father's rights group's STOP funding application (and followed by the relevant funding guidelines that also note the same ineligibility due to gender) that just happens to be stored on menshealthnetwork.org, a national non-profit organization?--Kratch (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just removed the cherry picking tag. I apologize! I just re-read the letter, a mistake on my part! :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns with the edit to the paragraph regarding California prisons releasing female felons who's opening sentence was removed, which is very much relevant to the topic of the section and paragraph. USSG prohibits gender from being a consideration in sentencing departure. The lawmakers have added "primary caregiver" as some means to avoid discrimination, yet, as the program still will not be eligible to men, even those who also fit under the primary caregiver criteria, simply because the program is being denied to MEN (IE, gender, which is a prohibited criteria), the policy remains in violation of USSG. It is my belief the original opening sentence is relevant and appropriate as it was.--Kratch (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the language so it reads more neutral. I think opening it with the USSG statement made it dramatic and urgent, and we cannot express that type of personality in our writing, due to the WP:NPOV policy, no matter how unfair or weird the law might be perceived, we have to allow the reader to make that judgement. It not only explains who the lawmakers are involved, but still stresses the use of "primary caregiver". I'm a little miffed, after comparing both versions, as to why the version I copy edited would appear non-appropriate or less relevant. It's just proper grammar, good layout of the paragraph and by laying out what the law is first, and then explaining the problems with it (and the conflicting law and the reason it's a problem) reads a little easier. But I could be wrong. I'm not here to edit war or get into it with anyone, I just want every article to read smoothly and understandably. :) If you feel that my edits weren't warranted, I'm comfortable with you rewriting the paragraph! SarahStierch (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire to get in an edit war, hence all my recommendations and concerns are posted here, for others to correct. I have already been warned for my concerns over the bias of editors working this page. With that said, if you are truly looking to improve the article, I have listed a number of concerns in the "undue weight to women's issues" talk discussion above. I welcome you to provide feedback and edits in those regards.--Kratch (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Celdaz: It looks like the domestic violence section was removed because the first part of it didn't relate directly to Men's Rights (it was just argument about whether or not the abuse rates were comparable), while the other two paragraphs didn't have reliable sources to back them up. If you can locate any reliable sources where inequalities in domestic violence laws are discussed in relation to men's rights, I don't think anyone would object to you adding them to the article. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have twice now had to revert the sentence "so "Primary caregiver" was added, in response to changes of "it was changed to primary caregiver to allow it". "So "primary caregiver" was added." is a direct quote found in both articles, so claims that the changes were to better reflect the content of the sources is in error. --Kratch (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed an edit claim that "It is believed that the program will be offered to men at some point in the future", as this is not reflected in any of the provided sources. The closest they get is, it "could" be extended to men. --Kratch (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The first source listed says "It is believed that similar actions will be taken with regard to the 150,000-plus male inmate population and the fathers among them." I will restore the content as reflected in the source unless you know of a source that states something contrary to this. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The first source says "similar actions", not the same program as your current edits suggests. The third source is what I used to provide a direct quote. I would request you edit it accurately to reflect one of these two sources, as I will not revert your edit a second time and be accused of edit warring. --Kratch (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they could be referring to by "similar actions" other than offering the program to men. If you read the quotation in the context of the article, it certainly seems to be saying that. Also the 3rd source states: "Prison officials Monday would not say how many male inmates they expected to qualify for home detention..." which would only make sense if they were planning to roll out the program to men as well. Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kratch, I am concerned that it seems that you are still failing to understand the nature of Misplaced Pages. We are a neutral encyclopedia that reports what has been said in reliable sources; it's inappropriate for Misplaced Pages editors to engage in original research or to try to engage in synthesis by presenting multiple sources in a way that advances a conclusion that is not present in the original sources. I am going to remove a large portion of the content that you added today; I will add further sections to this talk page explaining why I am removing each section as I remove them. If you are unable to step back far enough from this issue to contribute to this article in a way that is compliant with our content policies, you should stop doing so. (If you are too close to this issue to be able to edit in a neutral policy-compliant fashion, you will probably eventually be blocked. I am not saying this as a threat; just a prediction based on my previous experience with other editors who were unable to step back adequately.) As a small example of what I mean, "The erosion of men's rights" is a grossly non-neutral title that represents your own point of view and does not represent the consensus view of reliable sources. (I'll be changing the section title shortly.) Kevin (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

I am removing this entire section. There are currently no reliable sources in this section that explicitly link the issue to men's rights. Additionally, it currently only cites primary sources. It's inappropriate to juxtapose two primary sources to form a conclusion - this is a job for academics, not us. We report what is said in reliable secondary sources, we don't synthesize primary sources to form our own conclusions. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence being seen as a thing men do to women is a pretty serious men's rights issue. The lack of support men receive, men not being taken seriously by authorities, men being arrested for defending themselves when their partner initiated the violence, violence in male same-sex relationships, increased use of weapons when the aggressor is female, verbal and emotional abuse and indeed the obvious bias in naming a law against domestic violence the "violence against women act". The fact that the domestic violence section in this article just links to the greater DV article is pretty poor. Hermiod (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that domestic violence is a large part of the men's rights movement. Perhaps a brief section can be added into the article about the above concerns mentioned by Hermiod and then a direct link to that section in (if it is in) the domestic violence article.SarahStierch (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentencing disparities

I am also removing this subsection. Currently, the section has four sources. The first source is a primary source which does not discuss the issue in the context of men's rights. With the disclaimer at the start it also may not be a RS - and the host it is currently on is unacceptable. It may be acceptable as a primary source if you find it on an official host, so that we can confirm the material presented in it, but there won't be many appropriate uses for a primary source that doesn't explicitly discuss the issue in the context of men's rights. The second source, although it certainly discusses sentencing disparities and looks reliable to me, does not discuss them as a concern about men's rights; it only observes that they exist. The third source specifies that it is a working paper which means that it is not peer reviewed and has an unknown level of editorial insight; it fails WP:RS. Also, although it seems to observe a gender sentencing disparity, it doesn't make any strong claims about why they are caused, and doesn't explicitly talk about it as a men's rights issue. (Even if it did it wouldn't matter, since it is not a WP:RS anyway.) The fourth source is not clear about where it is from, so it is not obvious that it has the editorial oversight required to be a WP:RS. The fourth source also doesn't talk about the issue as a men's rights issue explicitly. There is no RS in this section that explicitly talks about this as a mens rights issue, although several sources do note sentencing disparities. Talking about it as an issue of mens rights when no RS cited does so is an issue of WP:SYNTHESIS. Kevin (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• My god, you're not even trying to appear neutral anymore. Who made you the final arbiter of what's presented in this article anyway? The third source is absolutely fine. Especially considering what passes for RS on most feminist articles.--75.134.142.69 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has certain policies about article content. Although some of them are flexible on an article-by-article basis, some of them are not flexible and most of them are not flexible without a strong reason to be flexible. Even though you don't understand them, I did not invent them, and y'all do not get to ignore them. Working papers normally fail WP:RS. In special circumstances with a particularly convincing argument certain working papers might be able to be viewed as RS, but that would require a convincing argument which no one has so far presented. Working papers are not generally subjected to significant editorial oversight and are not held to the same standard expected for published papers. Looking through the archives of RSN, it looks like they've agreed with me every time the issue has come up. (And, for the record: I don't really care what 'passes for RS on most feminist articles' - I've never edited feminism and don't really have an interest in doing so. If the sourcing in other articles is not up to our standard, that's an issue for the talk page of other articles.) Kevin (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I accidentally removed the other part of this section too. I'll either have a rationale for removal up shortly or I will restore it shortly. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at it: the only RS currently in the section talking about the California plan was the la times article, and it did not talk about men's rights. So, it stays removed. The news clip on youtube may represent an available reliable source, but since it's a copyright violation and put up by an obviously partisan person, it's not an acceptable source as it is. If you find a place that has the news clip up that is not a copyright infringement posted by an MRA, we can potentially restore the section... although it really ought to have more than ten relevant seconds on a news clip to be talked about in a general article like this. Kevin (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • So, to summarize: In order to be considered reliable, a source must not only support the numbers, it must support them in the context of men's rights. However, if a source discusses men's rights and supports the numbers, it is considered biased and thusly not reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.192.94 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

One has to be careful to avoid that appearance. Misplaced Pages's reliable sourcing rules are clear that a source need not be excluded if it espouses a particular viewpoint, but care must be taken when using it. In this case, the source appears to be a copyright violation, which means it cannot be used under Misplaced Pages's copyright rules. Assuming that is got over, a concern I suppose might be that it was out of context (reviewer writes "it is really shocking that anyone would pay good money to see this film", film poster says "reviewer says 'pay good money to see this film'"). A longer, not copyright breaching version, would help reassure everyone that nothing like this happened.

However, it is perfectly proper to add information to the article thus "men's groups condemned this move..." with a citation to the primary mens groups condemning it. The same statement from a secondary source would be better, which is where you are running into problems, as there don't seem to be that many of them (and if you want to argue that this represents some bias in the press, you would need a reliable source to put it in the article, but it does seem to be the case than this kind of issue is rarely represented in the media as an issue of disadvantage to men)Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} There is no article whatsoever in which it would be acceptable to cite a youtube repost of a copyright news clip posted by someone expressing a hugely partisan opinion. If you find another article that tries to cite a copyright violation posted by a partisan source for information - and I don't care at all what the article is about - I'd be more than happy to support you removing it. Kevin (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Elen here that the focus needs to be on secondary sources saying something like "men's rights activist work on issues such as X, Y and X". It is best to avoid men's rights groups and anti-men's rights groups as they are primary sources; there are lots of secondary sources about the men's rights movement and their views, and these should be the priority. It avoids both the problem of original research and helps with the WP:NPOV issue in that it is easier to see what are the key issues. I'd agree with Kevin that all the sources have to mention men's rights; otherwise we end up with a free for all of people trying to prove any random point with OR based on stats from this or that place. Good writing and research for a men's rights website, but not here. --Slp1 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's own article on sentencing, gender and race has more than enough sources to quote from to show that sentencing disparity is a genuine phenomenon. While the section may need rewriting, the greater sentences given to men over women for broadly similar crimes and the continuing effort to reduce the female prison population through lenient sentencing must be discussed here. Hermiod (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest an addition to the Sentencing Disparity section which deals with with the concept of "personal responsibility" and how it is applied differently to men and women. In particular, judicial systems in most western countries apply the idea that men are totally responsible for their own actions, and very little mitigates this responsibility - whereas women are often excused of personal responsibly for their actions, usually on grounds that would never be available to men, such as having s difficult childhood or emotional problems. This relates to how mental health issues are applied differently to men and women in the courts - men generally need to be considered clinically insane to use mental health as a defence (and even then are usually imprisoned in an institution), whereas women can claim any number of mental or emotional afflictions (including depression) that are used to shift the blame for their actions.Zzz90210 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I also suggest mentioning in the Sentencing Disparity section that the disparity is greatest when the perpetrator/victim is either male/female or female/male. That is to say that women don't just generally get lighter sentences than men, but also get lighter sentences when their victims are men rather than women (especially in cases of sexual/physical violence).Zzz90210 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Shorter life span

Is shorter life span really viewed as a men's rights issue as stated in the lead? I'm picturing a guy with a "We demand equal life spans!" sign. Surely this is mistaken. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's in reference to men being "put on the front lines" of violent situations - war, urban violence, etc, or the idea that men are more prone to being raised in environments that lead to destructive behavior. Here's an example of one reliable source I found, despite being from 1993, where a men's rights advocate discusses it. But, I'm not sure if it warrants being placed in the lead. SarahStierch (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To note, that is the only reliable source I've been able to find (thus far) on the subject short of logging into my subscription research accounts. SarahStierch (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a MR issue, but there are things connected to it that are. Fatal workplace accidents, death while serving in the armed forces, men being less willing to report medical problems to doctors (due to gender roles), men being more likely to be the victims of violent crime and so on. These all contribute to men having a lower average lifespan.Hermiod (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think life span is enough of an issue to include in the lead or should we just concentrate on the more specific issues? Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest concentrating on the larger issues that cause men's lower lifespan. Suicide is another, suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 35 in Britain. In general, the whole 'women and children first' idea that leads to men being seen as disposable. Hermiod (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with hermiod, it is not a big enough issue to warrant a section. The more specific issues contribute more to the articleMeatsgains (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, instead we need to focus on access to healthcare, industrial safety, violent crime, suicide, armed forces service and other issues that cause men's lower lifespan. There is no evidence to suggest any biological reason why women live longer so societal factors must be taken in to account. Hermiod (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

move?

I think that it probably makes sense to move most of the content in this article to a page on the MRM or MRA's, and change this page to a disambiguation between human rights and MRM/MRA's (so that most people who enter 'men's rights' will be able to find whichever they are looking for.) For this reason, I'm not going to worry terribly much about WP:UNDUE etcetera on this page for now. I'm also going to stop removing poorly sourced content for now, to give some time for the new wave of SPA's to settle down (and hopefully source some of the unsourced stuff, and create some good content in the process.) Sometime - probably at some point next week - I will set up the move unless anyone raises major objections or anyone does it first, and will go through the content and weed out that which still fails our content policies. Our core content policies do - and will continue to - apply in this area. (If you want to work on content in the interim, I would suggest that you read WP:NPOV and WP:RS at a bare minimum, so that you don't waste your effort.) Kevin (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would object to that strongly. This article is being continuously improved, there is no need to move the article and once again I question the motives behind such a suggestion. I realise this is a controversial subject but the edits are as well-sourced as anything else on Misplaced Pages. It looks to me like you're holding it up to standards you wouldn't expect others to meet. Hermiod (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that Men's rights movement is currently full-protected due to copyright violations that were happening there. If you guys come up with consensus content that you wish to create and/or move there (with attribution, for the love of pete!), please give me a heads-up on my talk page and I will unprotect the page so you can edit it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A handful of the edits are well-sourced, although many are not. However, WP:UNDUE requires that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Unless you would like the final state of this article to talk about MRA positions only as much as is warranted by the prominence of MRA viewpoints, a move and disambiguation will be necessary. WP:UNDUE doesn't say represent viewpoints in proportion to how correct you think they are - it says represent viewpoints in proportion to how widely held they are in reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There as well sourced, especially when NPOV comes in to mind, as any article on Feminism I've seen on Misplaced Pages, and surely that's the benchmark here? Academic articles on Mens Rights are the absolute LAST place you should consider NPOV. The hostility towards men's issues coming from universities is the subject of a court case here in the UK. Any article on men's rights is going to have prominence placed on those who have an actual interest in the subject. Were Misplaced Pages's articles on random episodes of Star Trek written by people who aren't fans of the show? Are Misplaced Pages's entries on New York Yankees players written by people who aren't interested in baseball? Your issues with NPOV do not make up a sufficient reason to move the article.Hermiod (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The benchmark here is our codified content policies. Whatever sourcing issues you perceive in articles about feminism are irrelevant here. You would do well to remember that irrelevant arguments are not considered in forming WP:Consensus. You will also not have any luck arguing that academic articles are not acceptable sources here. We consider academic articles sources of the highest quality - changing that is way out of the scope of discussion here. WP:RS is not up for negotiation on an article by article basis, although you're welcome to start a broader discussion about problems you perceive in the policy at an appropriate noticeboard. Kevin (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You consider academic articles to be of the highest quality yet several reference articles used as sources have been removed. None of this is an argument for moving the page. Please do not do so without going through the applicable formal dispute procedure. Hermiod (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it is a good idea to move the article. That's what was decided with regard to the Fathers' rights movement, and I think it was correct. This way the focus can be on their claims and points, methods etc. But I would strongly urge, based on my experience with that other article, that editors agree that only high quality secondary sources be used. There are actually lots of these available: academic and scholarly articles, newspaper and magazine articles, which provide some distance and perspective on the rhethoric, and help to determine the significance of particular points for and against, and undue weight issues per NPOV. Using either men's rights or feminist websites as a major source for material is not a good idea. --Slp1 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to merge this article with Men's movement (or Masculism) as there seems to be too much overlapping content already. I oppose moving the article to Men's rights movement when there is a men's movement article with basically the same arguments and sources.

Agree with Slp1: Academic and scholarly articles would be great but since they don't always say nice things about the men's movement I doubt that the SPAs will let you add and keep some of those. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that there is overlap, I think the men's movement page is and should be broader than the MRAs. There are various men's movements including "Men's liberation", the Mythopoetic, pro-feminist men etc. A few of good academic sources about this are . You are likely correct that MRA editors aren't likely to be happy with some of the content from academic sources, but so be it. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines for a reason, and generally editors learn fairly quickly to follow them or they don't- ie leave or are blocked. One of those policies is that WP prefers high quality sources such as scholarly books and journal articles to activist websites. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• A diambig page would make sense and would enable people to find Men's rights movement, father's rights, Men's liberation, human rights, rights of man etc quickly.
  Whether the best of the former content here should be merged to Men's rights movement or moved to Men's rights activism, or not, is, to my mind, a separate question - I'd personally consider a stub for Men's rights activism (which will grow as 3rd party scholarly reliable sources deal with the subject) the most logical option (since they call themselves Activists - this is what an article should be entitled per (WP:NAME)--Cailil 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this is so ambiguous. There are clear distinctions here. First, you have Men's Rights which is analogous to Women's rights, a list of areas where men receive negatively unequal treatment by the laws of the various nation states around the world. Second you have the movement to correct such inequalities, analogous to Feminism the most common name for that being Men's Rights Activism or masculism. However, as Feminism does not focus exclusively on women, neither does the equivalent men's movement. Third, you have the broader concept of masculinity, analogous to femininity, which should focus on more general topics such as male gender roles, media portrayals of men and so on. Finally, you have areas such as father's rights, 'intactivism' (the movement to end the circumcision of male children) and other such groups specifically focused on single issues that affect men. If anything, men's rights, masculinity and related subjects should be an entire project of their own as it is large enough a subject to justify it. Hermiod (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As there do not appear to be sufficient sources to support those articles, they, in fact, would not be justified and fall under WP:UNDUE. As you may be able to see from my user page, I have been working on a separate article for the men's rights movement, but many/most sources do not meet wikipedia's guidelines and thus can't be used. The topics you discuss, MRM, intactivism, and so on, are fringe movements and it seems that having their own separate pages would simply be advocacy, and not appropriate. You say MRM is "analogous" to feminism when that is move definitely not the case, as the respective sizes of those movements would make very clear. LikaTika (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Source? That sounds as much like an unverified statement as anything else said here so far. Hermiod (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Revenge behaviours

What does the sentence about women initiating revenge behaviours have to do with men's rights? Kaldari (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Men have right to not be subjected to revenge behaviors or something like that I would suppose. extransit (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's part of a greater discussion of how women commit domestic violence in different ways to men, ways that are not recognised by the courts as abusive, thus infringing upon men's rights. Hermiod (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should say that and preferably include citations explaining the connection. Otherwise, it is without context (and a violation of WP:SYNTH). As it is written now, the connection is not at all obvious and it just seems like a statistic thrown in to attack women. Kaldari (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it for now while I look for sources to improve the section in general. As previously discussed, any discussion of men's rights must include a strong discussion of domestic violence. Hermiod (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Trivialising this issue

I am trying to continue assuming good faith, but a lot of the discussion here seems to be generated by people who are trying to trivialise the subjects discussed in the article and eventually censor that discussion through obscurity. Discussion of moving the article to a place where it will be more difficult to find, removing genuine men's rights issues and replacing them with out of context discussion of men in ancient Greece, demanding citations to show that water is wet, holding the article up to higher standards than articles on women's rights have ever been expected to show and more.

There is nothing wrong with this article that a bit of honest work cannot fix. Most of the people contributing here have done so in good faith. It's frustrating, therefore, to see edits undone by a minority who have a political axe to grind on some of the issues mentioned. Hermiod (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Its obvious that most of the recently interested users are acting in bad faith. Any one who thinks most of the above users are not biased is kidding themselves. I find it particularly amusing how everything in the marriage section was removed and replaced with a single snarky sentance about the right to divorce your wife by text message. Anyways, I think this will actually be a boon for those of us interested in an informative article, the article was in a less that perfect shape before, and well, I don't know about you, but I'm dedicating myself to clean up the mess left by the hacksaws. extransit (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermiod - you have been told, multiple times, that is inappropriate to continue speculating on the motives of other editors. Stop doing so. To reiterate for you: continuing to make allegations about the motives of other editors after having been asked to stop is a violation of Misplaced Pages's community standards; continuing to violate Misplaced Pages's community standards, especially after being asked to stop, results in you being unable to edit Misplaced Pages. Kevin (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic at hand rather than threatening users with bans. "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeat personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information." Hermiod (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just hearing about some kind of uproar over this article, so I want to start out by saying I'm coming to this late. That being said, reading through the Talk page, Kevin seems to be one of the main voices keeping this discussion on track. Arbiter, no, but an exemplar of proper editing & article curation. Citing the lede-- as you mention-- it seems to me to be a mirror of the current Women's rights page. mordicai. (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally worked on the lede and edited it per discussion here that many seemed interested in having this article "look" more like the women's rights article. I would argue that instead of making it a "parody" it makes the article, it improves it, and makes it clear that what rights are. Is someone trying to argue that rights are not freedoms and entitlements? That's actually the definition of right. LikaTika (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud section- example of WP policies

I have removed this recently introduced section because of the significant problems with verifiability, original research and neutrality. I am detailing them below in the hope that it can help future editing of this and other sections, which may also be affected though I haven't checked them.

• Text added: "Paternity fraud is the act of woman purposefully naming a man as the father of a child when that woman is aware, or at least suspects, that he is not. This can be for personal gain (to obtain child support payments greater than that the real father would be able to provide) or to prevent the break-up of a relationship." This is not verifiable from the BMJ citation given (which is an excellent source), which actually says. "Misattributed paternity is sometimes referred to as paternity fraud, a term that suggests that the mother (and possibly her lover) knew about the true paternity and deceived the man for financial gain". Note that the term "paternity fraud" is actually spelled out to be a non-neutral term, and the article actually uses the term "misattributed paternity" throughout. Nowhere in the article is the claim made that women do this to "prevent the break-up". Nowhere in the article is the claim that women do it to obtain larger support payments that the real father can provide.
• Text added: "Many jurisdictions compound this problem by preventing challenges to paternity after a certain amount of time has passed or holding the husband of a married mother to be the father of a child regardless of actual paternity" This claim is nowhere in the BMJ article. I'll add that it also misrepresents the BMJ article's conclusions which are not supportive of men's rights claims: "It is concluded that claims for reimbursement and compensation in cases of misattributed paternity produce the same distorted and thin view of what it means to be a father that paternity testing assumes, and underscores a trend that is not in the interests of children."
• Text added: "Statistics from the British Child Support Agency showed that in one in five of the support claims was made against a man who proved not to be the biological father, yet they had no record of any criminal prosecutions ever being brought" Source, the Daily Mail, which is a very poor source. It is currently being discussed on the WP:RSN whether the Daily Mail should be permitted on WP, as their fact checking is so poor. But even if we allow the source, the sentence added misrepresents it. Paternity fraud is a deliberate deception whereas the Daily Mail makes clear in its two opening sentences that the one in five statistics includes the mother naming the wrong man inadvertently (as they put it) because she is not sure who he is.. An actual medical review found the average to be 3.7% of paternal discrepancy- for any reason, that is, not just deliberate paternity fraud.
• Finally, a connection needs to be made, in the citations, with men's rights. This is ensure that the article stays focussed on men's rights as seen by secondary sources rather than what individual editors think is a major issue, and arguing back and forth with statistics they have found here and there.

I have only checked this section, but this is enough to indicate that editors adding content here need to tighten up their contributions. They need to use sources actually about men's rights, stick much more closely to the sources, not add unverifiable original research material, avoid cherry picking information to suit their POV, and use the highest quality sources available. --Slp1 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Slp1 This is becoming a problem, I spent quite sometime yesterday looking for reliable secondary sources that are neutral, and had very little luck, and this was utilizing research subscription websites like Jstor and about 30 other collections. Most of the resources, written by scholarly/university groups and people generally end up questioning the men's rights movement and providing content about why they are wrong in their motives, when a few are written by those involved in the movement or appear to lean towards it. We're really lacking in neutral materials, to the point where it might just be better to create the "Men's rights movement" article that has been discussed, it might be easier just to examine the history and mindsets of men's rights supporters then try to break down these issues. It also seems that since some users are very attached and involved in the movement that this will continue to remain a problem.SarahStierch (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This highlights what I was talking about earlier. Without getting in to a discussion of men's rights themselves, while normally academic articles make for great references for Misplaced Pages, in this case their value is suspect at best and using them will generate further problems for those trying to keep this article clean. There are at least two current legal cases regarding the quality of gender studies education in the United States and the United Kingdom that I know of and all these have done is highlight the issue that such courses are a hostile environment to male students. If anything, the lack of quality education on men's rights issues is actually a men's rights issue itself. I think it's really important that this article not be allowed to end up looking like an article on Moon Hoax accusations where every point is only made so it can be debunked. As a second, more general point, I don't think it's unreasonable that people interested in men's rights contribute to this article. Misplaced Pages isn't worth bothering with if everything is written by laymen who know nothing about the subject. Hermiod (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of misconceptions here. First, we don't need neutral sources: we need high quality secondary sources. End of story. WP:NPOV says it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". We don't make exceptions for topics because we personally find the "official" or "academic" line or whatever to be biased. So reliably published books etc from a men's rights perspective are welcome, as obviously are those from scholars and academics, even if they are critical. Where necessary, the views can be attributed, though attribution can be a POV weapon too.

Men's rights supporters and their opponents are all welcome to edit here as long as they do so from a neutral point of view "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." (from NPOV. Per WP:ADVOCACY, if you're reason for editing is to promote (or oppose) men's rights, then you are in the wrong place. Unfortunately, several comments here have suggested that is the case. If you can't stand back enough to say, "well, yes, men's rights activists might have a point there", or "actually now, that I think of it, those men's rights websites I've been reading haven't been telling the whole story about this", then probably you shouldn't be editing. Make suggestions on the talkpage if you like, but let others do the editing. --Slp1 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that which is why I have not attempted to use well known men's rights blogs etc as sources. It is still my contention, however, that articles published by university gender studies departments should be treated with additional scepticism. Hermiod (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good about the men's rights blogs, but as I've said before, policy doesn't support your attempt to marginalize academic sources on the matter. That's what we should be basing our articles on. --Slp1 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not when those articles are as clearly biased as any men's rights blog, but that's the last I'll say on that subject.Hermiod (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias is in the eye of the beholder, of course. In any case, WP doesn't in any way require reliable sources to be neutral (per WP:V, WP:IRS]], and this is repeated time and time again in posts at the WP:RSN. The issue with men's rights blogs is that is not that they are biased, but that they are blogs, which are poor quality sources. But reliably published books by men's rights activist would qualify. It's the article that needs to be neutral, based on the distribution of thought in the highest quality sources, not the sources themselves. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the source material for what is a summary of the greater paternity fraud came from the main paternity fraud article. Paternity fraud is a men's rights issue because it is men being told by law to pay to support children that are not theirs. It's not an issue of women committing criminal acts against men, it's an issue of men being legally expected to pay for other people's children. If this isn't a men's rights issue then something like abortion can't be a women's rights issue. Hermiod (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a good idea to take material from one article to another without verifying it yourself. Unfortunately, WP is not a reliable source and people add all kinds of garbage to articles. You are responsible for whatever you add, and it is very problematic in terms of encyclopedia accuracy when editors add material that is misleadingly cited. The result becomes that everything you write has to be checked with a fine tooth comb, and this is a huge waste of editors' time. It's also a major problem in developing trust and cooperation among editors. These are the kinds of editing mistakes lots of people make at first, so don't worry. Just try to learn from it.

I'm not disputing that paternity fraud is an issue for men's rights activists. It is. There are lots of reliable sources that say so.. That's where we need to start, and accurately reflect what the best of these say about men's rights issues regarding paternity fraud, rather than gathering information ourselves to make a case about it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that rather than hacking out the segment, you could have just added that reference yourself? Why does every edit have to be turned in to a massive discussion? It's things like this that show why Water doesn't use the word wet once - because nobody could find a source to back up something everyone knows. Hermiod (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems were much more significant than adding a reference to men's rights would have fixed. And edits don't have to turn into a discussion if sources are used accurately, there is no POV original research added, and if editors didn't try to deflect the responsibility onto others. --Slp1 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you here. There is no attempt to deflect any responsibility. All I've done is ask people to try to contribute positively instead of engaging in these constant discussions of Misplaced Pages policy that don't belong here. There is now more text in this discussion of the section than was in the section you removed. It would have been easier to just rewrite the section than to continue to engage in this pointless debate. Hermiod (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes contributing positively means removing stuff from our articles that doesn't comply with our policies, and pointing out what these problems with the editor who added them. Policies and guidelines are absolutely key to this article, and the discussions absolutely belong here, most especially when during several conversations on this page it seems that you (and others) are not clear on several points.--Slp1 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Areas Requiring Improvement/Addition

There are a considerable number of areas which need addition and/or improvement. Additionally, as discussed below, anything we do add would require reliable sources and this is not an attempt at a definitive list of subjects as that would constitute original research.

• Paternity fraud needs to be restored and the sources replaced.
• The section on conscription needs some discussion of how women are not required to register for selective service in the US and the effects on men who do not register.
• The section on circumcision needs expansion to further discuss this as a men's rights issue.
• The under-performance of boys at multiple levels of education is a massive men's rights issue.
  • Additionally, the lack of male representation amongst British primary school staff is a concern. (A significant proportion of British boys will never see a male teacher prior to age 11)
• Perhaps a small section on gay rights as a men's rights issue.
• Specific areas surrounding rape are very, very serious men's rights issues. Specifically, false accusation, lack of anonymity for those accused of rape, inability to face their accuser(s), US universities excluding male students based solely on accusations (the infamous Duke Lacross team incident springs to mind), female on male and male on male rape not being taken seriously and so on.
• So-called 'reverse' discrimination where lesser qualified women are promoted/hired over men while no effort is made to hire, for example, more male teachers.
• Business discrimination - examples being men facing higher car insurance premiums than women, 'girls nights' at nightclubs and so on.
• Sexual harassment.
• Homelessness amongst men.
• Suicide.
• Men's greater working hours, lower use of vacation time, longer work commutes etc.

Please feel free to add to the above list directly. Hermiod (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Without cites to reliable sources (WP:RS), that list is wholly your own outlook, original research (WP:NOR), which isn't allowed here, this being a tertiary source encyclopedia (and encyclopedias tending to be both handy and sometimes, as flawed as their sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know! I'm making suggestions for content which I'm hoping other people can help with. It's not a list of things I'm going to add! Hermiod (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN would seem to apply here. You have not yet added materiel, but you wish to add this materiel, and therefore the burden of finding sources lies with you. As you have no sources, I would caution strongly against violating original research; finding sources for preconceived ideas, rather than reading sources and then writing what they say, is generally less desirable both in practice and in outcome. KillerChihuahua 18:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not disputing any of that and I totally agree with you. The above is a list of suggestions which is open to criticism, not an outline.Hermiod (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd add that you'd do much better to start from reliable sources when making the list. Find books and/or articles about men's rights and get the list of topics from them. That will help with determining weight issues as well as content. I'm sure you made the list in good faith, but it is a dangerous way original research way to start. --Slp1 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm just going to say forget it. If an attempt to suggest ways in which this article can be approved cannot be had without yet more policy discussion then it isn't worth the effort.Hermiod (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

There's now a thread at WP:ANI about the issues involved here. Kevin (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've upped protection on the article to full for one week. Hopefully this will give editors time to talk about the sources (WP:Reliable sources) and how to deal with them, here on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for unprotection added. Hermiod (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Men's rights movement has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Men's rights → Men's rights movement – The concept of "men's rights" is not readily distinguishable from the well documented Men's rights movement. The appropriate topic, and location of this article is a discussion of the movement, not a study of the claimed rights. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have to object, as Men's rights and Men's Rights (the movement) are tied together. I would imagine that Women's Rights and Women's Rights Movement (which redirects to Women's Rights) are in the same boat, I see no reason why the same solution won't apply here. TickTock2 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

There is a great deal of literature on the movement. There is very little literature on the actual rights in question outside of the movement, which is substantially different than Women's rights, which have a body of literature and study outside of that of Feminism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that idea as well, as there are MANY sources about Men's Rights oustide of the movement in question, just because it is not under one label such as feminism does not mean that it is not there. I support my argument with thing such as conscription (which I sourced in the article), or Ancient Spartan males requiring to be in state custody after the age of 6, or we can go into more details such as rituals that are required of men (in some cultures) to become men. I have discussed this at length in this article and outside. TickTock2 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit I'm new to Misplaced Pages, but by my previous edits, I hope you see that I am open to intelligent discussion, so What does it take to stop a move, and what would it take to change your mind that a move is not necessary? TickTock2 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to any such move. I've already described the differences between men's rights and the men's rights movement above. There should be separate articles for each. Hermiod (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is soley focused around the movement (well, the parts that aren't just unsourced arguing, or totally off-topic that is). What can be written about the rights themselves, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. 'Men's rights' should and does discuss areas in which men have and are denied specific rights based on their gender. There is plenty in the article already to support this. This is analogous to women's rights. The movement to correct those imbalances is separate, as is separate to women's rights. I do not know why this is such a hard concept for others to grasp. Hermiod (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not. Articles are not designed to be advocacy pieces - this appears to be your problem here - you would like this article to reflect the WP:TRUTH that "men have and are denied specific rights based on their gender." Reliable sources do not address this - if they do, please cite them here and we can build an article around them. This article is currently a morass of WP:SYNTH coupled with a few lines about a movement. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. It's up to you to prove your case, not for me to defend mine. You are seeking this move, it is up to you to prove that there is a good reason for it. So far, all you have done is state your opinion without sources. Hermiod (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misusing WP:BURDEN, which deals with adding or restoring unsourced, challenged content. I am asking to move the article, not add information - in fact, if the article was unlocked, I'd remove a lot of information which is either irrelevant or unsourced. I contend that your objection is not germane, as your definition for "Men's rights," appears to be "that which addresses the grievances of the Men's rights movement." Until such a time as you can demonstrate that this article adresses something unique from "the grievances of the Men's rights movement," your objection to the move can be safely ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are asking to make an edit which others have objected to. You are questioning my motives in objecting to this which is a policy violation of its own. You have no good reason to move this article and are doing so for arbitrary purposes. You are required to give a good reason for moving a page which is something you have not done. You have two separate objections, both of which you have attempted to belittle. My objections stands and I will not accept it being ignored. Hermiod (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN. I agree with the move personally based on Hipocrite's comments. Alexandria (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, no you may not. I'm tired of the bullying and harassment this issue has generated. Hermiod (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminding editors of applicable policies is helpful advice, not bullying - and playing the victim does not release you from your obligation to follow the policies. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the behaviour exhibited here by you and multiple others is bullying. You do not agree with the points raised in the article so you try to censor it by hiding it and holding it up to higher standards than any other article on Misplaced Pages. No victim card is being played, I'm calling you out on your behaviour. It is not your place or the place of anyone here to decide what is and is not a 'mainstream' viewpoint. It's that kind of behaviour that caused this problem to begin with and you are continuing to exacerbate the problem. Ironically, you are demonstrating the exact kind of behaviour that causes Misplaced Pages to have so few female contributors. You don't create an atmosphere where people can contribute positively. Hermiod (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Ironically, I think if Misplaced Pages actually had a normal gender balance, the Men's Rights activists would be demanding that the article be moved (rather than the opposite), and they would be demanding that all content be sourced to material related directly to men's rights (rather than the opposite). If we turned this article into a reflection of what the mainstream world actually thinks about Men's Rights, it would basically say "Men have all the rights," as this is the general perception of mainstream society. However, since Misplaced Pages is dominated by men and has a strong Men's Rights presence, this article is instead a one-sided argument about how men are not treated equally and are getting the shaft. If you are a Men's Rights proponent you'll be doing yourself a favor in the long run if you go with Kevin's suggestions and stick to strict sourcing rather than allowing original research and synthesis to dominate the article. You'll also be doing yourself a favor by moving the article to Men's rights movement. One day women may actually show up on Misplaced Pages and edit this article to reflect the mainstream view of the state of men's rights. Since there are about 100 times more sources for the feminist view than the masculinist view, you might have a hard time keeping your one-sided argment. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Which will come first, more women editing Misplaced Pages or men being represented at all in the university departments creating the sources you wish users to cite? The discussion around gender has been 100% female dominated for decades. University gender studies departments are man free zones. If you are asking for Misplaced Pages to be similarly biased then you appear to be getting your way already. Hermiod (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

{{fact}} Got something to back those claims up about the university departments? Alexandria (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's called the real world outside of the Internet. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages does not have an appropriate way to cite such a source. That's why the article on water isn't allows to use the word 'wet'. Hermiod (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, According to the American Association of University Professors, in terms of full time university Faculty, the majority of professors are male. The only place where there is a 50/50 or near 50/50 split is in part time faculty positions. The relevant data is on page 6 of the PDF --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to students in women's/gender studies departments, not the greater university population. Hermiod (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

But that is part of the problem. Gender studies departments are not the only area where articles and research about Gender Inequality originate. People in History, Medicine, English, Psychology, political science, linguistics, economics, and biology all discuss gender issues, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. And some of those fields not only out man gender studies departments (pardon the pun), but also publish more as a whole, and are much better funded than any gender studies department. By limiting yourself to only gender studies research, which, as some other editors have pointed out, do have male faculty and authors, you're ignoring a wealth of other sources which exist and may live up to your desire for whatever sources you think should be included.--TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing anecdata? Frankly, that has no place here. LikaTika (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for anything. It's merely an observation that highlights a flaw in the way Misplaced Pages works, in my view. It is not a request for change, it is not arguing with policy or anything like that.Hermiod (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In the face of such a statement as "University gender studies departments are man free zones", a request for supporting reference is not unreasonable, and the assertion that a thing is so true as to require no supporting evidence is I think this article's core problem in a nutshell. Ford MF (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "wikipedia does not have an appropriate way to cite such a source" means "Hasty generalization + Confirmation bias. I honestly chucked at that, there are plenty of men in both gender and women's studies. The difference is that I can source it. As a matter of fact I can source it to 30 years ago, which means that the many men in said fields had plenty of time to influence the subject. Nformation 04:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it means real world information which Misplaced Pages does not support. Hermiod (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but real world information without support is called an anecdote. Not to mention that many groups do studies on that very issue on a regular basis and publish their results. I'm curious as to which sources you'd actually find acceptable, since WP requires statements to have sources like Noformation and I provided. --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is of course not relevant to the move/not move. But it is also wrong to say that arguments adduced on talk pages need to be backed up with reliable sources. Hermiod is clearly correct, if hyperbolic, to call gender studies departments man free - they are usually either all female or almost all female. http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html contains a list of 900 gender studies department. Out of interest I looked the first six I could connect to, all had academic staff between 5 and 10 and half had one male, half had no males. I don't think this would surprise anybody. What did surprise me slightly was that Hermiod was being challenged over the statement. And of course even more surprising is attempted rebuttal which refers to an article - well a short piece of introductory text - which thinks eight out of forty is one quarter - it is, interestingly (but not statistically significantly), the same one in five that was the maximum percentage my spot check turned up. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

I do not agree with the move, they should be two seperate articles. However Alexandria makes a good point, it is rather biased (and im male) and could use some sources and sections on the other side of mens rights. ie we have them all.Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. I'm reading through this article for the first time and I'm concerned that the scope and focus of the article is just too vague to be viable on wikipedia. There's stuff here about ancient greece and Pakistan and divorce in the US and its very unclear what the common theme is beyond "Disparities in the treatment of men and women by law and institutions across history and cultures". Are there sources which connect, say, church policies to only ordain men with the percentage of men who file for divorce in the US with the military obligations of men in Ancient Greece under the framework of men's rights? If not, than I think throwing all that stuff into the same "men's rights" article is original research. My recommendation here would be focus on the platform of this men's rights movement (whatever it is) and to provide as much context for each specific issue as possible. If there isn't a source connecting an issue to the topic of "men's rights" than get it out of the article. (comment copied from ANI discussion) GabrielF (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry can you clarify what your saying exactly? Men's rights and Men's Rights Movement are not the same thing. We have Men's rights which deals with things like ancient Greece, and we have the current (modern) movement. It's very similar to what you see in Women's rights and Women's Rights Movement. Notice how those two pages redirect to each other? TickTock2 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I understand what's going on here. This article is trying to mimic the structure of women's rights except from a male perspective. Note the similarities in the intro paragraphs and the topics discussed. Got it. The problem is that these are two completely different animals. Talking about the relative status of men and women in history provides needed context for a discussion of why the women's rights movement believed what it did. Also, there's a history of change in the rights of women. There's a perfectly logical flow from talking about how women in ancient greece (which was responsible for much of Western culture) had few civic and political rights to talking about the middle ages, to the enlightenment and the suffragettes and the modern era. These developments were all related. What is the relation between, say, military obligations for men in ancient greece and prison rape in contemporary society? The structure that works for the women's rights article utterly fails for the men's rights article. The only way that I think it would be permissible to link, say, ancient greece and the men's rights movement in the same article would be if you had a source that said something to the effect of "the men's rights movement is driven by a feeling that men have lost the traditional role in society that they enjoyed since ancient times" or something to that effect which makes the link explicit. Otherwise including stuff in this article "because the women's rights article does it" is just POV nonsense. GabrielF (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support I agree that it's rather vague/fringey in regards to content, sources and ideas (nothing personal, folks!), and that it might be more beneficial to create a page that can examine the belief system and culture of men's rights as a movement, and per GabrielF. SarahStierch (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view's "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views," wouldn't an MRA page allow a uh...how do I put this...a page where that tiny minority's views could be expressed? An article...devoted to those views? mordicai. (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you expand on this a little bit? what do you believe is a tiny minority? The advocates, the rights, or what? How do you separate out the current rights from the movement? TickTock2 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream view of the world-wide state of men's rights can pretty much be found already in the article patriarchy. This article, however, reflects the views of (American) men's rights activists, not the rest of the world. Thus it is not in line with WP:NPOV. If it is moved, that won't be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong support for the reasons listed by mordeicai and kaldari - and because the fringe movement MRM does not define what men's rights are. Giving their arguments weight and space here does not seem to comply with policies. LikaTika (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Object The page is similiar to Women's Rights and Women's Rights Movement. I've heard no compelling reason as to why they should be separated and we should not use the same template. TickTock2 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.User TickTock2 has also objected above. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference is that the editors of this article don't seem to have any interest in making it NPOV. They want to focus on the talking points of the Men's rights movement (which is a minority POV). Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd completely disagree with that sentiment, some editors I agree don't, but some do. We were moving towards NPOV before all this mess started. TickTock2 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@TickTock I think Kaldari was referring to the article now - in relation to the recent coincidental influx of meatpuppets, men's rights activists, and editors who took breaks out only reappear again when this article became something of controversy. I don't think he's referring to the articles previous status, which you have primarily been involved in. I think myself, and others who were involved or observing the teamwork and editing (albiet slow, but that's how it goes) taking place a few weeks ago would say they were impressed by the tedious and well organized process. That's all gone to hell, with the recent situation. SarahStierch (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Judging by the discussions above (and the current article lead which includes things like "lack of social support services for men" and "decline of college enrollment"), I think a lot of people really want this article to be about the Men's rights movement. If it isn't moved, we should work towards making it reflect the mainstream world-wide view of men's rights, not the one-sided view of men's rights advocates (as it has since its creation in 2005). Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong object. Attempt to move the page is politically motivated and not consistent with Misplaced Pages's neutrality policies. Hermiod (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)User Hermiod has also objected above. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and not make assumptions about other people's motives. GabrielF (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried but there's only so much trust I can be asked to give, given the mockery of the subject from the same users posting here I've seen on the Admins notice board. I am quite willing to accept that most people edit in good faith but this has been an entirely one sided view so far. Hermiod (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be crystal clear here - the attempt to move the page is by me. I have not posted on the admins notice board regarding this subject. How could posts to the admin notice board have anything to do with my motives? Be extremely clear. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been clear. The suggestion to move the page was made earlier today, not by you. You are only the one who did the paperwork. It has since been supported by users who clearly have political objections to the subject itself and therefore I cannot assume good faith from anyone who votes to move the page. Additionally, you specifically stated earlier that my vote should be ignored. That is disrespectful. Hermiod (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire reason the move is being suggested is that the current article isn't NPOV. It currently reflects the views of Men's rights activists, not the mainstream views of the world. If the article is moved, people will be able to focus on the men's rights POV as most of the editors of this article seem to prefer. Why is this not a win-win suggestion? Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Clearly there are conceptually different things which need disentangling. Put it this way: I am a man, I'm not too keen on the Men's Rights movement but, all the same, I do feel that I should have rights. Also agree with GabrielF that the article is actually in a worse state than the RfC question is letting on and seems almost randomly generated in parts. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Objectively  ... objectively there exists a topic that is aptly called men's rights. It is distinct from another topic: a movement to promote men's rights. The topic of the article is pretty clearly men's rights. If particular movements are mentioned, that is only subsidiary. The article's clear focus is on the rights themselves, and their acceptance or denial. We do not conflate Slavery and Abolition of slavery (which redirects to Abolitionism, as a movement), or Women's rights and such articles as Feminism. We not marginalise Women's rights by reducing its advertised scope so that it seems a mere movement or pressure group. Rather, Women's rights movement redirects to Women's rights; in parallel (since the topics and detailed contents are indeed parallel, as inspection shows), Men's rights movement redirects to Men's rights. If we change one, we ought to change its mirror image. I am assuming that editors here are against sex discrimination, and in favour of equal treatment regardless of political salience, or of success in achieving the rights treated in these articles. Objectivity. Noetica 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  I don't agree that we need to treat the articles men's rights and women's rights accordingly. These topics are very distinct, with distinct histories and traditions of scholarship and WP:NOR demands that we treat them as such. We don't have much of a concept of "precedent" on wikipedia - just because there's a consensus around one article doesn't mean that that consensus needs to apply to another article. Having said that, my goal for this article is to see it brought into focus. Hipocrite seems to favor removing a lot of the historical material and focusing on the platform of the men's rights movement. Another approach would be to look at the rights and privileges historically offered to men with some discussion of how people believe those rights should be expanded. That seems to be what you're going for. I think that's an okay approach although more difficult to implement because its a broader topic. Ultimately, if the consensus is to focus the article in that direction than certain sections would still have to go - prison rape for instance, or cancer funding, since they really have nothing to do with men's "rights". GabrielF (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really going to have to check and see whether rape is mentioned in any feminism articles if you think the treatment of male prisoners isn't a men's rights issue.Hermiod (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it doesn't matter what the feminism articles say about rape because we don't run things on a "but that article got to include it" basis. GabrielF (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A curious response, GabrielF. We don't absolutely need to treat the two articles the same. We could take a political stand and treat them differently, I agree. We could (though I have proposed that we avoid this) act in favour of sex discrimination, and against equal treatment regardless of political salience, or of success in achieving the rights treated in these articles. Why would we want to do that, though? Who benefits? Is the landscape any clearer, then? Do you think, after long and dispassionate reflection, that women have rights to equal treatment (and an article should be devoted to those), but men do not? Whatever we need to do with article titles, and whatever political pressure might achieve, no one has given a reason here to go against the policies and guidelines of the Project. There are two parallel topics, treated in parallel articles, with parallel treatment in external sources – differing in volume of publications, but that should not be a consideration. Please leave at the door any political inclinations you may have, next time. Noetica 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But they don't have parallel treatment in external sources, that's the point. Whereas there is a large literature on women's rights (separate from the movement), it simply isn't there on the men's side. Perhaps it will be in the future, and then decisions can change. --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure they do. Women's rights is very much discussed within the topic of the Women's rights movement. Women's rights is an idea of the womens rights movement. Men's rights is an idea from the Men's Rights Movement. extransit (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that having an article called women's rights but not an article called men's rights would imply that wikipedia is saying that women's rights are more important. I'm not aware of any policy that would support your argument - I think its expanding NPOV way beyond its intention. One problem with your approach is that it leads to situations where a user can insist that every aspect of one article match another article. Hermiod, for instance, says that the question of whether the rape of male prisoners should be included in this article should be decided on whether rape is included in articles on feminism. That's crazy. The issue should be decided based on whether sources treat prison rape as a "men's rights" issue (and searching a number of academic sources, I couldn't find any that do, on the other hand, I found tons of sources that treat rape as a women's rights issue in the sense that it is a violation of reproductive and other rights. Additionally, when I was a teacher and had to discipline a student, the student would sometimes say "but so-and-so did this" and I would have to say that I would deal with the other student separately, but that my concern at the moment was the student in front of me. If I let a student drag in another student's behavior it would derail the entire process. I think the same concern is relevant here - if we start including women's rights articles into the conversation than it adds to the contentiousness and makes it very, very difficult to deal with the primary concern here, which is improving THIS article. GabrielF (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, for one main reason. Sources. Having looked about, I don't see reliable sources that distinguish men's rights per se from the claims made by MRA. For example, the chapter on "Men's Rights" in the "International encyclopedia of men and masculinities" is all about the men's rights movement, its history, philosophy etc. The Encyclopedia of human ecology also has a nice section on the MR movement, using just the sort of dispassionate language about, for example, the domestic violence issue that I hope could be emulated here. The "Men and masculinities: a social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia" also tackles the topic of Men's Rights through the movement.. In addition, I don't see the relevance of all the past history stuff (either here, or to be honest on the women's rights page).As far as the literature is concerned, there isn't the symmetry that Ticktock2 argues for: there is an extensive literature on women's rights issues per se, likely because globally over history, women did have a lot more catching up to do, with regard to voting, property, job opportunities etc. For men's rights the literature is all couched around the MRM. However, I think it also needs to be made clear that even if the page gets moved, it doesn't mean that the policies go out the window, and MRA talking points are the main feature. It still has to follow the rules, and accept the good and the bad according to the sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Coda- my point about men's and women's rights articles not being symmetrical has been made much more eloquently and clearly by GabrielF while I was typing this up. I agree wholeheartedly. --Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support No support that this topic differs from "Men's rights movement." Furthermore, there's not a lot salvageable in this article. OhNoitsJamie 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the rights specific to men as distinct from human rights is a cogent topic, much like Women's rights. extransit (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rights specific to men" has the potential to be different topic from MRM, but do you have any reliable sources to show that it is, practically speaking? Also, frankly, if that's your definition, the article is going to end up being practically the opposite of what a men's right activist would want, as through history and still across the world, the bulk of "rights specific to men" are at the expense of women. --Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your talking point about how this article will be the opposite of what men's rights advocates want or why you think that is relevant to this merger discussion. If anything it shows how political your contributions here are. extransit (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from attributing motives. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Do you have any sources to make to show that men's rights are a distinct topic from men's rights activism, or not? --Slp1 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to speak for Extransit, but one would be a historical article, and the other is about the MR movement itself. I think it's totally possible to have an article outlining the various rights (or lack of) through history in different areas of the world. But that doesn't seem to be what this page is....yet. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

-

Yes, everything's possible. But it all comes down to sources. There's plenty of sources about men's rights in the context of men's rights activism. Have you got any sources (book chapters, encyclopedia, newspaper or journal articles that talk about men's rights through the ages as a topic? If not, we're inventing a subject and we are bound to be engaging in original research to find sources. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've typed up a few responses, but they keep growing in length...My opinion on what this article should be, is a historical recounting of Men's rights through history in differing areas. This would not require these facts to be in a specific context, just that they be sourced (the sourcing should obviously be discussed elsewhere). Arkon (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Move I just don't see how this can be a standalone article from the MRA one. So far it's just a collection of random bits of information. If we want to detail men's rights in ancient greece, create an article called men's rights in ancient greece etc. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That reasoning makes no sense given that we have a Women's rights article. Should we disavow the article on women's rights because we could have an article about women's rights in Ancient Greece? extransit (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think comparing this article to the women's rights article only highlights how terrible this one is. If you have some suggestions on bringing this article up to those standards, you could possibly sway me. As it stands, its a jumbled mess of cherrypicked factoids. Arkon (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am confused about how you think moving an article is a solution to its quality problems? Editing, not a move is the solution to quality problems, just as how Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion is not for quality problems. extransit (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the article we have, and it's terrible. Again, if you have suggestions on how to flesh it out, I am all ears and willing to change my opinion. For now, my opinion is that the best option would be to redirect/merge it into the MRA article. Arkon (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had just started working on it; I had just allready added six journal citations and three books, when it got protected quite ridiculously (there had been a single revert in the last two days). extransit (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that the protection is over the top. On that note, changing my Support to Wait until protection expires to allow editors to improve the article. Arkon (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't it be possible to snatch up every reference from the women's rights page in order to do a mirror article? (As a start anyway) Arkon (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Irrelevant This article is currently about neither of the suggested titles, it's a poorly constructed mishmash of perceived inequalities with in many cases poor or cherry-picked sourcing together with large amounts of original research and synthesis. Most of the parts that would be part of such an article already have their own articles. Far better not to bother with a move, but to decide how best to fix this article first (which will probably involve removing a large amount of its content). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with all your comments about the article content, and that it basically needs to be rewritten. But I do think moving would actually help with editing because it would help develop its form and content more clearly. It's what was decided when years ago "Fathers' rights" was moved to Fathers' rights movement: because that was what the reliable sources actually were about. For all that article's deficiencies (and there are plenty) it is better than this one in myriad ways.Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Gabriel and Slp said it better than I can. It is probably better to focus the title on the Men's Rights Movement itself and re-build from there, rather than trying to stitch together a historical survey on male freedom from a variety of sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Articles appears to be in large part synthesis and original research without much of a corpus of sources to reference in support, outside the men's rights movement itself. Ford MF (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue for moving of the page contents of a couple months ago to a men's rights movement page. It is my belief that the page as it was (couple months back), was based on an interpretation of Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), but was held to NPOV standards based on the definition Men’s rights (Civil Liberties). A reading of the article as it was a couple months ago, would see the intention was an article of the Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), and a simple renaming would likely have resulted in many of the NPOV complaints becoming minor or non-existence, and not delete-worthy. Particularly if the page was then held to the same standards for meeting policy that the Feminism article are held to (or even a moderately higher standard, as I don't see the Feminism being held to a very high standard.).--Kratch (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• support this article is currently a mess of Original research and synth. At the poposed title at least it will have a topic that it is possible to write an article about without basing it on Synth and OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. The article's gravitational center is about the recent movement to reclaim for men the rights some of them perceive they have lost to women (as if it is a zero sum game.) There is no topic called simply "men's rights". Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This article, as it stands, seems to be trying to be something like Men's rights as opposed to women's rights. If we really wanted an article on "men's rights" it would have to be about the development of men's rights and responsibilities in society. It would have to include things like land tenure, feudalism, the right to a fair trial, Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution, The Rights of Man ..... The subject is simply too vast. The current content is pitiable compared to the subject. On the other hand a documentation of the current "men's rights movement", their concerns and claims (and whining) would be quite manageable, and encyclopedic. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article reflects what a reasonable person in modern society would expect of an article dealing with men's rights issues. I don't think a reasonable person would expect an article titled "men's rights" to deal with historical civic rights like the magna carta - perhaps "rights of man" might create such an association. A point that many people here seem to be missing is that the phrase "Men's Rights" has established mainstream recognition and understanding, at least in modern, industrial, western societies - perhaps not to the extent of the phrase "Womens Rights" - but should that exclude it from being recorded in wikipedia?Zzz90210 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose with no objection to the creation of a separate article centered on modern men's rights movements. The women's rights article does a good job of providing an overview of the history of the concept while addressing its modern themes and various interpretations. I support maintaining a similar format for this article. If one of the previous versions of this page is reincarnated as a modern men's rights movement article, I hope editors address the polemical tone and the overly Western scope while recognizing that the movement is very broad (compare the Promise Keepers to the mythopoetic men's movement). Any move should also consider how the new destination would differentiate itself from the masculism article. Gobonobo 04:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – the article does not seem to be about a movement. It should remain named for its topic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Object This page deals with a large number of clear, specific, identifiable issues relating to Men's Rights, I count at least 15 high level "rights" which are subject to discussion. These issues are often subject of heavy media attention and debate, outside of the context and circles of MRAs. Most of the points raised in the article do not even mention men's rights movements at all - so to conflate it with that separate issue seems unreasonable. Zzz90210 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support move Much of the content under discussion for the article concerns Men's rights movement. After a move, this page could then be changed into a disambiguation page. (A few of those voting "oppose" are recently arrived single purpose accounts. For example, Zzz90210 (talk · contribs), an account registered only a few hour ago, has only edited this page on wikipedia.) Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The term "movement" only appears a couple of times in the body of the article - there is very little discussion of movements in general. The bulk of the article deals with issues that are widely known in popular culture as relating to men's rights outside of the context of MRAs, and I think most reasonable people would associate the term "men's rights" with the points in the article. Issues such as divorce, child custody/support, paternity fraud etc. are regularly covered in the mass media in the context of men's rights, usually without much reference to any MRAs. It seems highly inappropriate that such widely reported and discussed issues are conflated with "mens movements", which is far more a fringe concept with far less mainstream adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Also please could you sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end? Personal opinions are of no value on wikipedia unless they are fully backed up by secondary sources. What you are proposing might be fine for a personal blog or even a user space essay; but at the moment what you are suggesting seems to be little more than original research and synthesis. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a place to engage in ideological battles. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR and WP:BURO apply here. Rules should not be used as a stick to prevent good faith editing. Hermiod (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I will assume that since you resort to making personal attacks instead of providing evidence to support your previous claims, that no such evidence exists are your claims should be dismissed. Zzz90210 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I have written can be taken as a personal attack. Since community probation is likely to be put in place, now is perhaps a good time to be more careful about what you write. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Men's Rights issues occupy a slice of mainstream conciousness, are regularly reported on within the mainstream mass media, and I think a reasonable person would expect to come to Misplaced Pages and find a page titled "Mens Rights" that covers these issues of mainstream recognition such as I mentioned above. MRMs are quite distinct, occupy far less mainstream conciousness, and I think a reasonable person would recognize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 October 2011‎

I think you misunderstand what this suggestion is about. Its simply whether this is the best name for the article. If the article is moved to Men's rights movement, then Men's rights will become a redirect to there, OR this page will be about the historical aspects, with a link to there. No one is talking about not having an article. KillerChihuahua 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Don't use the nowiki tags, just the four tildes to sign, ok? KillerChihuahua 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support It seems quite clear that what's being discussed in this article are subjects in regard to the men's rights movement and not inherently to men's rights themselves. Silverseren 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have to admit that I am torn on the subject. I feel that having historical context is almost always helpful (but I will admit, that my personal love of context is skewing my opinion here). However, I will agree that all the sources are mens rights movement related, and the historical context sources are being removed by people who think the sources should be directly related to the movement. However, without long term historical context, the movement loses a lot of the reasons that it is so contentious and the view of the overall picture is significantly dimmed. After all, no movement starts in a vacuum, and if you look at other social movements they have their roots hundreds of years before they became effective (for example, feminism and socialism both have their roots in a historical context centuries or so before). In short, I am very torn about this and cannot decide to vote either way and only made this comment to bring up what I feel is an important point --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I love history and historical context too, and I agree it is important. But it isn't up to us as editors to decide what that historical context is: we have to go with what the sources say. The sources about discussing men's rights do not start in Ancient Greece; they start in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't know if you have access to Amazon "read this" function, but

Oh, I agree completely, I just love my context that much. It's a problem, I'm seeking help. ;) --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose More than enough sources for a standalone "Men's rights" article. Furthermore the move rationale is not based on policy. "The concept of "men's rights" is not readily distinguishable " is not a valid rationale. – Lionel 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights in social context

I would like to propose that the introduction to this section contain some mention of the social context of Feminism and Feminist-driven public policy that has been enacted in Western societies over the last 3-4 decades. Most of what is understood to be "Mens rights" in the context of modern Western discourse relates to changes in law and public policy over this time period, and is to a large extent a reaction to those changes. This is not a whole-of-world view, however is applicable to most modern Western countries, and it seems like an ominous omission to leave out this important context which is really quite vital to understanding contemporary MR movements in Western countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but only in regard to what is found in WP:Reliable sources. There should not be a construction of a new argument made here, only the summary of an existing one. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, assumption that a user does not know the rules. Hermiod (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should he know the rules when he's only made a tiny handful of edits and only to this page? You could put a welcome template on Zzz90210's talk page and gently walk him through the five pillars of wikipedia. Other useful pages are WP:NOTFORUM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV,WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:NPA. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The three most critical and relevant rules here, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are linked to at the top of this page. No need to keep repeating them at every new person who joins this discussion. It's a shame it doesn't also link to the best two rules of them all - WP:IAR and WP:BURO. Hermiod (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermiod, when one arbitrator and one ex-arbitrator have rung alarm bells about the editing here, you should take a step back and stop making tendentious statements about wikipedia policies. It is highly likely that this article will be placed under community probation. Perhaps now is the time for you to start exercising a little more care, as you could very easily be banned from editing this article and its talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

After this debacle, and what has been demonstrated to be acceptable behaviour from some very experienced editors, it's very likely that I will not be contributing to Misplaced Pages again anyway. Hermiod (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hermiod, the behaviour demonstrated by "experienced editors" on this article is precisely why contributors like yourself are needed to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Zzz90210 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Zzz90210, please could you redact this comment as it is clearly against the terms of the topic probation currently in force? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

To the experienced editors on this page: please, PLEASE set a good example. I understand all of your suspicions and concerns, and (being an experienced editor myself) I even agree with many of them. But rule #1 of being 'civilized' is overlooking uncivilized behavior, even when you really don't want to. There are lots of admins watching this page, so be assured that problematic behavior will not get out of hand; take that as an opportunity to demonstrate the best side of the Misplaced Pages community.

Deep breaths, big smiles, helping hands, a disgustingly positive attitude all around - let's go for it! --Ludwigs2 04:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A list of notifications is available on the subpage: it includes two editors in this thread. In addition it is worth noting that KillerChihuahua and another administrator are providing guidance on how to edit this article on one of the Reddit pages devoted to "men's rights". My own personal concern at the moment is with the BLP Tom Martin (activist), which is directly related to this article. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've bookmarked that article for observation. let me know of any specific concerns you have. And I cannot tell you how (...there's no good word for the bubbly feeling I feel...) I find it that admins are reaching outside of wikipedia to instruct people in proper wikipedia editing. I frankly love that idea, in (and because of) its absolute absurdity. that thought is going to make me giggle for days. --Ludwigs2 05:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Physical/Sexual abuse of boys

I think this article is missing a section dealing with the sexual abuse of boys and surrounding issues. These issues include:
- historical beliefs that boys/men essentially cant be sexually abused/raped by women
- the large number of boys abused within various Churches, and the difficulty in getting such abuse recognized
- the historical and present lenient treatment of female sexual abusers of boys in Western countries
- physical abuse of boys as part of punishment regimes that did not target girls, such as corporal punishment within schools
Zzz90210 (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our policy on verifiability, or reliable sources? We can only include sources information, so if you'd like to add something to the article you'll need to present sources. Nformation 04:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume he is not already aware of that? It is not necessary to reply to every comment with nothing but policies. Hermiod (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and don't assume you know what I assume. I'm pointing it out because if he does know, can shrug it off, but if he doesn't know, he will either get sources or not waste his time. They don't sign their posts, just like new users. Also, he didn't present a source in two different threads, which is usually indicative that someone isn't aware that you need to source information here. If s/he has a problem with what I wrote, they can take it up with me, but you have no reason to comment when someone explains to a user an important policy. Nformation 05:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, at least on his part. I am getting really tired of being told to follow a policy by people who aren't following it themselves. Hermiod (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, which policy exactly did I not follow? Scratch that, I'm not entering the WP:BATTLEGROUND with you. Have fun. Nformation 06:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF Hermiod (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking a similar thing when I first read the article although I do not believe we should concentrate on boys. This is a wider issue which includes the treatment of sexual assault of males both below the age of consent and above, whether by females or males. Currently, our article mentions this to some extent in 'prison rapes' but it's clearly something beyond prison rapes. The 'rape laws' section only seems to consider issues surrounding male perpetrators and female victims. There's some mention of this in Rape by gender including of alleged double standards and some of the sources there may be useful but you'll need to find sources to link it to the subject as well. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And let us not forget one very important right that most men are denied, that is the right to marry another man. That is really sort of a double whammy - two men denied in one swoop. Surely we can all agree this is is intolerable. Carptrash (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. This article should deal with rights issues specific to men - however the inability to marry someone of the same gender/sex is a right lacked by both men and women in many countries, and should probably be under "LGBT rights by country or territory" or even "human rights". Zzz90210 (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead end

Sustained struggle over a subject has often led to administrative supervision of editing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

community sanctions have been proposed on WP:ANI. KillerChihuahua 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement, or History of Men's Rights?

The problem in this editing war is a lack of consensus as to what the topic paramaters are to begin with- is it about the work and perspectives of the uniquely contemporary Men's Rights Movement, or is it about the History of Men's Rights? Currently the above edit war appears to consist entirely of those editors wanting to conflate the long history of male power (especially over women) with the almost exclusively contemporary phenomenon of men's right's collectives and thier concerns. Any editors refusing to consider a disambiguation to solve this matter are doing so out of confusion regarding these paramaters. If "Men's Rights" were divided into two seperate articles as suggested then the fight for narrative supremacy could cease for those editors who care to cease it. 58.170.59.250 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this will only work if both factions agree to follow wikipedia policy. The rampant disregard for policy by some interested parties does not make me hopeful that the split will solve the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmazing0and1 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "History of Men's Rights". The concept of 'rights' (as something inherent to an individual or group) is effectively non-existent before the advent of Liberalism, and prior to the mid-19th century was just a way of talking about the relationship of the individual citizen to the state (it just so happened that the 'individual citizens' under discussion were almost exclusively male, caucasian, and propertied, but the discussion was rarely cast in gendered terms). In the latter part of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century liberal practices expanded to included people regardless of gender, race or wealth: that created frictions, and there were reactions against that broadening of effective citizenship, but there really isn't anything remotely like a concern over "men's rights" until after the sexual revolution in the 1960's and 70's, when women's rights started to extend into the home and relationships. Once men started losing the implicit authority they had always held over wife and family, it was possible for them to see themselves as victims and meaningful for them to raise issues about their own rights. At that point we can start talking about men's rights.

I'm not averse to the concept of men's rights in general (a liberal society has to balance rights carefully on all sides, and that is often a whale of a struggle), but perspective please: trying to push men's rights any farther back into history than the late 20th century makes no more sense than claiming that Cleopatra and Joan of Arc were feminists. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is entirely correct.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you. Hermiod (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to actually disagree, as Men's rights (not the movement) definitely has a history. If we are attempting to make this only about the movement, then I'd agree, but if this is going to be about general men's rights, then it definitely has a history. Just because the term was not existent at the time does not mean it stops the history. Look at Women's Rights in Ancient Greece as an example. TickTock2 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again; there is no article here on Women's Rights in Ancient Greece, and while some feminist authors may have discussed that. somewhere, such material can only be used with proper attribution and context. It cannot be asserted as fact without verification. Please read the comment I made above; it should help you understand the limitations of what we can put in the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see This Article on Women's Rights (with Greece Subsection), Take for example source 7, it does not have a source relate to Women's Rights, but it is a fact and is included, are you missing the link between Ancient Greece and Men's Right or what exactly are you limiting? TickTock2 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing that needs to stop happening on this page is the appeals to the women's rights page. That is a separate article with its own talk page and if it needs to be improved that's something that can be taken up over there, but it has absolutely zero bearing on this page. Wiki articles are guided by policy, not by reference to what other pages do. Nformation 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Misplaced Pages so I'm trying to understand a little more about policy an, I'm using other Misplaced Pages articles that I know are in good standing as an example. I'm asking what information is missing to provide the link as this is relating to men's rights (once again NOT the movement). We also have another article "template" to go off of, in the sense that Women's Rights provides history on Women's rights, while segwaying into the movement very smoothly, why would that approach not work here? TickTock2 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on being new, and welcome to WP. Women's rights is a different subject with its own sourcing, scholarly background and research, and because the sources don't overlap, we will likely not be able to mimic (nor is that necessarily desirable) that article. You pointed out what very well might be a flaw in the women's rights article, and I'm saying that any flaw on that page should be discussed on that page as it has no bearing here. This article's discussion should focus solely on applying policy to the content of this article; it's the nature of this project that every page is likely to have a mistake here or there, and some pages have more than others, and because of this we cannot say "look it's done a certain way on article X so we should do that here too." There are certain small exceptions to this rule. For instance, articles about albums will generally have a similar format because widespread community consensus dictated a certain stylistic approach. But content wise, the only thing that matters here is what the sources on this page say and how we report them. For future reference, if you ever have any questions or need policy explained please feel free to visit my talk page! Nformation 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And yes, while looking at and comparing with the Women's Rights article isn't on topic or helpful, I'll point out that source 7 comes from a chapter called Women and Democracy in Ancient Greece, and its first sentence is "Women were excluded from political rights in Ancient Greece". --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And there you have it Nformation 17:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be precise, allow me to add that women's rights has a century or two of head start here. Women's rights were being discussed starting (depending on how you measure it) in the mid 18th or 19th centuries: you can start with Wollstonecraft and the women's suffrage movement or delay to the more effective women's movements in the 19th century, but in any case the recognition that women were being denied rights is at least 150 years old, and there's a lot of scholarly theory written on the issue. The same simply is not true of men, because there's almost no discussion of men being denied rights (as a class of people) until (as I noted) the 1970's. It just wasn't an issue until then. --Ludwigs2 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic parameters should be anything that has mainstream recognition as a Mens Rights issue, E.g. issues around divorce, child custody/access have huge mainstream recognition and coverage as Mens Rights issues. There are non-mainstream issues, for example there are groups that believe men should have the right to marry multiple wives - the fact this is illegal in most places does not make it a mainstream Mens Right issue that should be covered on this page (of course polygamy gains mainstream coverage, but usually in the context of womens rights). I dont know why "history" is seen as so contentious a topic - if there are historical mens rights issues that can be sourced, include it, if not then dont. The history section doesn't/shouldn't make or break this article IMO. Zzz90210 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Archive Discussion

Since this talk page and the greater article are the subject of this, I propose that all administrative discussion of this article be archived and any further discussion unrelated to the improvement of the article itself should be held there. I do not see how we can draw a line under this unpleasantness otherwise. The appropriate banners and links to the ongoing administrative discussion should remain, of course. Hermiod (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion related to the improvement of the article; AN/I is for discussing things unrelated to content that require the attention of administrators and, in this case, neutral editors. Nformation 08:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I suggested leaving appropriate links to that ongoing discussion on the page so it can be found. As it stands, this talk page is currently unusually long.Hermiod (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely misread what you wrote. I thought you were suggesting that we bring the AN/I discussion here. Nformation 08:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, just trying to prevent the current administrative discussion taking place in two places at once. Discussion of the ANI business should take place over there, discussion of improving the article should take place here - at least that's what I think. Hermiod (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My current proposal is to move the entire page to Archive 6 so that the version history is preserved. Archive 5 has already been created which prevents use of the move tool here, unfortunately. After this, I would copy/paste back the sections entitled "Requested Move" and "ANI" so that the discussion surrounding moving the page is not disrupted. Please let me know if there are any objections. Hermiod (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page contains extensive discussion of problems with content currently on this page. This proposal does not particularly make sense. Kevin (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Object: suggest setting up Mizabot archiving. Please note this talk page, like most article talk pages, has not been archived via move but rather through paste. This way, the entire history is available through one page history here. Further, autoarchive helps prevent premature archiving, as only threads with no recent activity are archived. KillerChihuahua 12:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the archiving could do with happening sooner rather than later. Hermiod (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Whatever happens, I've set up 1 month old auto-archiving. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that works for me too. Thanks. Hermiod (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Miszabot works fine with me. Kevin (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE of community article probation

This article has been placed under community probation, and editors not adhering to a high standard of conduct will be subject to sanctions, including blocks, topic bans, and site bans. Please familiarize yourself with the probation at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. I will now unlock the article for editing; any edit warring or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Please discuss desired changes on the talk page and reach consensus before making any significant edits. KillerChihuahua 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this include editing out entire sections (such as the History section)? TickTock2 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Review WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review what was said directly above this, if we are going to disregard the probation already it seems wrong to have done it in the first place. I'm trying to assume good faith and ask that we discuss major changes BEFORE making them, not AFTER. TickTock2 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I explained on my talk page - I am engaging in WP:BOLD editing. I have no concerns with other editors reverting me - I'm not going to engage in revert wars. I made my edit to the article, and I'm not going to edit it again for about 24 hours while you (hopefully) discuss. In about 24 hours, I'll make another, probably differet edit, which you'll either accept or revert - if you revert, we can discuss some more. I specifically don't have the article on my watchlist (only the talk page), because I don't even want to think about back-and-forth reverting on an article under probation. I believe my strategy to improve this article will be widely praised. I don't know what your strategy is - I hope it involves discussing my problems with the article in your preferred form. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

History Section

I'm going to revert to bring History section back. I believe we need to settle what this article is about (the current movement, men's rights as a whole or both) before making big changes. I'd also ask that big changes not be made to the article without discussion. This includes huge edits to remove entire sections. TickTock2 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The history section has got to go. We cannot use sources that do not use the concept of Men's Rights to write a section on Men's Rights. It is WP:SYNTH, and simply not permissible. IF you find a book about the History of Men's Rights then you can rewrite the section based on that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned the history section has nothing to do with Men's rights at all, and is generally synthesis. I'll go section by section.

Objection to major changes without discussion

If you want to have this discussion I'm okay with that, but please start by reverting the article as changes should be met by consensus and major changes should NOT be done without discussion. TickTock2 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(subheader mine) Are you saying you will only discuss when the article is in your preferred form? Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No I'm asking that you AGF and actually have this discussion instead of making blanket changes to the article when the article is on probation. TickTock2 (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TickTock: the material is prima facia original research. stuff like that can always be removed on sight. you have the right to argue for its re-inclusion (using policy), and I'll even help you with your argument if you like, since you're new. But please don't worry about immediacy; the issue is getting it right in the long run, not in this instant. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what does probation do, if entire sections can be removed (with 4 subsections under it)? This seems a very strange way to push probation, especially consider we are discussing the actual scope of the article above? (ie Men's right or Men's Rights (the movement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TickTock2 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Probation is a way of protecting the encyclopedia by enforcing proper behavior on the page. it's not about protecting particular elements of content. It's an unfortunate fact that real world activism, personal conflicts, and other editor issues sometimes interfere with the development of informative, neutral articles. Sometimes when that happens we turn to stronger measures to obviate the editor issues and allow the content to develop. See the probation for what it is: I will get in trouble just like you if I step out of line on this page, so the only recourse the two of us have left is reasonable discussion. --Ludwigs2 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs is correct; for a specific example, if you'd reverted a second time, I could have blocked you for edit warring immediately without discussion. KillerChihuahua 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• The time to be discussing is now, not as a condition to restore your desired content, TickTock. You added content which is disputed. Two editors have expressed concern about policy violations in that content. As the person desiring to add the content, the onus is on you to persuade others the content belongs, not on them to persuade you it does not. KillerChihuahua 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Make that three editors. That section is pure synthesis and cannot be allowed to stand as is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was that way before, that was not a new addition. I thought the desire was to discuss before making sweeping changes? I would say that removing an entire section of the article as large change right? I would agree with you if I was adding the information now, or if the article was not under probation, but the line is not clear to me as to what changes are allowed and what are not. TickTock2 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to mentor you; try to resolve content disputes between yourselves. That said, Ludwigs has offered to help you learn how this all works, and both Hipocrite and Ludwigs are very experienced editors who are trying to assist you in your learning curve. Avail yourself of their experience, knowledge, and willingness to help. Note however that the onus, as I said above, is on the editor desiring to add (or retain) questionable content. KillerChihuahua 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

• What right is implied in the statement "Men who served in the military were considered full citizens with the right to vote, take part in legal proceedings, enter into contracts, and have full property ownership?"

• How is it a right to be "required to provide their own arms and armament."

• How is it a right that "men became wards of the state at age 6, moving into a military barracks of 64 other boys until the age of 30 and were required to complete 12 years of military service."

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with the first one, That was a requirement to be a full citizen that men must fulfill in order to be considered full citizens. It's an obligation to obtain rights. The 2nd, is in conjunction with the first, and additional requirement put on men to obtain citizenship. The 3rd are the "rights" they have to give up by being born in the state. TickTock2 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are JUST discussing the Men's Right movement then, these should not be included, but if we are discussing Men's Rights in general then they should be included. Does that clarify my stance and why I included them now? TickTock2 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What does an obligation to obtain rights have to do with rights? Were these rights considered rights of men, or rights of people, while women lack them? I'd note that in Athens, Women were not people, and so the concept of Men's rights really dosen't exist. It appears, in fact, that the entirety of the article was taken from the Women's rights section, and then inverted - that's really bad editing practice. Is there any review literature about Men's rights that would justify the inclusion of a History section? Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? I would imagine that what you have to do obtain said right is relevant to the right itself. These are rights that are required offered to Men alone. This article is NOT about women, it's about men and their rights. The concept of men's rights does not change that men had certain rights (and obligations to obtain said rights). I did not start the sections, I've only added to them, such as the the above three statements, I can speak for them, the inversion you speak of I spoke in objection to as well if you review the talk page above. I provided more sourced facts in relation to the time period. TickTock2 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article is about Men's rights then it should use sources about Men's Rights not general history books - because that is Original Research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is supposed to be about Men's rights. However, the construct presented about Ancient Greece has nothing to do with men's rights. Given that you apparently agree with me that modeling this article around not-women's rights is inappropriate, I question why you are restoring a section on Ancient Greece, where the rights in question were defined as "people have these rights; women are not people." Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how it does not have to do with Men's rights, as it is an action the state requires to have the rights, that by definition would relate to men's rights. How is that not related to men's rights? What are you talking about? what quote are you talking about when you say "women are not people"? TickTock2 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TickTock2. I want to thank you very much for all the great work you did to find all this information about men's rights etc through the centuries. It must have been a lot of work, and I have absolutely no doubt that you were and are acting in good faith to improve the article. It makes total sense at one level to try and parallel the Women's rights article, and all credit to you for the effort you put into improving Misplaced Pages. I see that you are quite new, so it is totally understandable that there is something of a learning curve: I certainly had a fairly step one when I began. I think the important thing to understand is that Misplaced Pages doesn't engage in original research. In other words, we only have articles about subjects that others have found notable, and we don't gather information to make new arguments. For example, I guess it is possible to have an article called Famous purple hats, by looking through books about millinery and those who wear them, and finding appropriate content. But since the topic hasn't been studied and discussed by experts in the field, we can't either. It's similar here: the list of (individually interesting) historical events etc that you have added haven't (as far as I am aware) ever been seen or discussed in the context of men's rights. I'm sure your edits are accurate, and in the future a scholar may well survey history and pick out these points as being key in the history of men's rights. But at the moment they are original research, because nobody has connected these facts to the subject. Does that make sense? I do agree with Hipocrite, Ludwigs2 (and GabrielF and others in the Move section above) that this historical information should not be included unless we can find reliable secondary sources that make the link to this topic. But I recognize that this is more than annoying given the effort you put into writing it. I wonder if the information can be moved to other articles where they will be more appropriate? --Slp1 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Would a source talking about rights in Ancient Greece/Athens/Sparta work, as that would be a secondary source about rights, about ancient Greece etc, or what qualifies it to "link" to Men's Rights? TickTock2 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No it would have to discuss the topic of "Men's Rights" explicitly, in order to qualify. General rights and duties is not the same thing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1 for the "Famous purple hats" analogy. When I attempted to offer the content provider previously, I was using the content that had not been rejected as an example of what could be done (after all, I figured if it couldn't be done, it would have been edited out). To be given an example of what counts as an original research violation will help me when I strive to offer more content this weekend (provided a scope of the article has been decided by that point)--Kratch (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Kratch: the easiest way to think about original research (which is one of those 'deceptively' easy concepts) is like this: it it's you saying it, it's original research; if it's a published author saying it, it's not. So for instance, the material about circumcision was original research because there were no published authors presented who talked about 'freedom from circumcision' as a male right. what was given was editors presenting 'circumcision' as something that men ought to have personal control over, which is pure editor opinion. One good book in which an author clearly lays out how foreskins are something that men should have individual control over is all that's required - cite that book and say what the author says, and you've mostly satisfied (which shows that it is a public scholarly opinion rather than your own personal viewpoint). there will still be further discussion about weighing and balancing that book to put it in its proper perspective (because sources cannot be presented as more prominent or less prominent than is realistic), but satisfying verifiability is a necessary first step.

essentially, wikipedia does not want to say anything on its own. It only wants to repeat what other people have said, and only for the purpose of public information. Find and present credible voices on the topic, avoid trying to argue for particular points on your own assessment of their merits; you'll do fine. --Ludwigs2 04:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New starting point

It's clear that this article has been strongly damaged recently, as the center point of a vicious attack by outside activists. I suggest that the current article is basically an embarrassment, and that we should strongly consider reverting to the last stable version - , and working from there. While that article has some glaring, obvious POV problems ("Very little has been done to formalize what men's rights are, or to protect these rights."), it's far better than what we have here, with the substantial attempts to revise this article to compete with the Women's Rights article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't dispute that this version of an article is a bit of an embarrassment, that version of the article is far worse. I would be perfectly fine with stubbifying the article and working on content in a sandbox pending the outcome of the move discussion (which sure looks like it's going to close in favor of) but that version has such significant problems that I cannot see how reverting to it would be beneficial. Kevin (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that version is very problematic too. I mean, references to Facebook!! It is also the subject on a discussion on a men's rights blog ] about how it had been nicely "fleshed out" by editors there, including User:Jayhammers (currently blocked here for harassment), so I think the version you'd like to revert to is one outside activists would actually prefer. Kevin's OR, V deletions were mostly from something very similar to this. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Stubbyfying the article seems to be the best approach towards improvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd prefer stubifying and rebuilding, but as demonstrated above, that's going to be harder than moving the article to the actually notable thing (the activism). Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Added after the edit conflict: a move discussion is in progress. Work on content for the actual notable thing can occur in a sandbox until it occurs. The original version of this article was grossly unacceptable, even as an article about the activism. So, a sandbox would be an appropriate place to develop new content that doesn't murder our content policies. Kevin (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to run, but I do think stubbifying to a verifiable bare minimum and then working on content in a sandbox is the best way forward for now. Can one of you start a new talk page section proposing it if you have the time currently? Kevin (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is no longer protected, since the community probation went into effect; no sandbox is necessary. KillerChihuahua 16:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My thought was that it appears likely that the move will achieve consensus, and content developed for that article will be substantially different than content developed for this article. I don't feel comfortable closing the move discussion myself given my degree of involvement - especially since a name hasn't been universally agreed on - and thought it would be weird to totally transform this article in to an article explicitly about MRA's/the MRM before the article is at a new title. So I figured that in the interim, a sandbox to develop content for that new article would be useful. Kevin (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, without getting dragged down into content discussion, it does appear that "Move" is winning over "don't move" but I see no arguments really for "split". This would be a redirect if this article is moved. If there is a split, then it would be wise to consider what content would remain here if the article is moved; meanwhile edit this article normally. KillerChihuahua 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

sentencing disparities (again)

Although this is discussed earlier on this talk page, I'm starting another section with my objections because the previous one is kind of cluttered (and a new section at the end of talk will ensure all interested parties see it.) To be clear, I'm not currently talking about the Carol Liu stuff (although that stuff is also hugely problematic,) just the actual sentencing disparities stuff. (Of course, this same problem is present in much of the content in this article.)

Currently, the section has four sources. The first source does not discuss the issue of men's rights, explicitly disclaims its reliability, and is used to support synthesis. (Without a reliable source saying so, we don't get to suggest that a fact is meaningful.) The second source, although it certainly discusses sentencing disparities and looks reliable to me, does not discuss them as a concern about men's rights; it only observes that they exist. The third source specifies that it is a working paper which means that it is not peer reviewed and has an unknown level of editorial insight; it fails WP:RS. The fourth source, although it's hosted on a .gov domain and may be reliable, literally does not specify what it is or where it is from, so it is not apparent that it has the editorial oversight required to be a WP:RS. The fourth source also, again, doesn't talk about the issue as a men's rights issue explicitly. Some of the sources in this section note that differences exist, but none of them talk about them as a men's rights issue. Selectively using sources to advance a conclusion not present in any of those sources is synthesis, and isn't appropriate in a Misplaced Pages article. To quote WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

I'll be waiting 24 hours before making any changes to the article, so that hopefully someone can either explain why I am wrong that this is synthesis, or rewrite the section to be acceptable. Kevin (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section on Sentencing disparities fails to be sourced. While it might be relevent for an article on Men's Rights Activism, it is not at all clearly related to anything but gender disparity in sentencing, which should be properly located in Criminal sentencing in the United States. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, this is an example of why there has been a backlash against both Misplaced Pages and yourself in particular regarding this issue.

This is your position: "It's demonstrably true that men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime in USA at the very least(and presumably other countries). It's also demonstrably true that in USA (and presumably other places) everyone has the right to equal treatment under the law, and there is explicit writing that specifically outlaws inequal sentencing.

However, we must not mention this in the wikipedia page about men's rights. Why? Because we have not found an academic / mainstream source that says 'Men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime, the rights of men are infringed upon due to this phenomenon.'"

You may be technically correct that the Misplaced Pages policies support your deletion of the sentencing disparity section. However, can you actually tell me with a straight face that Misplaced Pages is improved if someone comes to the men's rights page wanting to learn more and DOES NOT learn that men are given harsher sentences than women for the same crime?

Really? Can you honestly tell me that? That this article, and Misplaced Pages as a whole, is better off if that information is not included? As you must know, the rules are irrelevant - the only thing that's relevant is making a better encyclopedia. So please explain me to me how it is better to remove the information that men are sentenced more harshly than women in the article about men's rights? Celdaz (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Second warning, Celdaz: either be more civil and less dismissive of your fellow editors' views, or you may be facing sanctions. Tone down the rhetoric, please. KillerChihuahua 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To you, this is a completely obvious issue. To some, it's a completely obvious issue that Obama is a Muslim or that Bush is an idiot or that there's a secular conspiracy to destroy Christian values in America or that there's a Christian conspiracy to destroy secular values in America. Even if you do think that this is a completely obvious issue, I 100% guarantee you that there are people who edit Misplaced Pages who think things are completely obvious that you don't agree with. Banning original research allows us to focus on creating an encyclopedia that is (for well-written articles) no more insane about any given subject than the balance of reliable published sources that deal with that topic are. It allows editors with different personal views on a topic to collaboratively create high quality encyclopedic articles.

Yes, sometimes reliable published sources are biased or are flat out incorrect. Yes, there are some articles that I think would be more accurate if I could introduce original research to them. It's perfectly possible that there are articles that would be improved if we didn't have to use already published reliable sources. We have decided as a community that the benefits presented by requiring sourcing in this fashion far outweigh these problems. We have decided as a community that these represent an acceptable loss. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a Wiki that allows original research or adopts a particular world view, but it's simply not Misplaced Pages. Some that do so exist and are successful to varying degrees - conservapedia, rationalwiki, etc. Since Mediawiki is open source, you could even go create an MRA-wiki. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH is not a policy in itself, it is a part of NOR, and Compiling facts and information is not original research. Furthermore, it is your burden to show that an original thesis is produced . Furthermore, Synth is not Obvious--Kratch (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not intended for finding loopholes or contradictions in wikipedia editing guidelines. To include a subject in the article, a reliable source should be found which discusses that subject explicitly in the context of "men's rights". Otherwise the material is just original research and synthesis, essentially a personal essay. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And what defines "discussing a subject explicitly in the context of men's rights" mean? Does an acknowledgment that a policy is a constitutional violation because it discriminates against men not count? Does a study (presuming it's an acceptable source) that acknowledges that the law is not being applied equally based on gender not count? And why does my siting multiple relevant policies in order to defend the retaining of content count as "finding loopholes" rather that offering reasonable counterpoints? --Kratch (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably that the words "men's rights" should appear explicitly in the text. The same method would be used for civil and political rights. A search on google scholar or google books for "civil rights" gives lots of good sources. The same applies to racial discrimination. Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that such an interpretation ("Must have the words men's rights in it") is overly stringent. SYNTH does not say a thesis can not be proposed, it just says a thesis must not be original(And I'd argue that a thesis that men's rights are a risk of being violated based on sourcing an article that says there is a policy the risks a constitutional violation for discrimination, and that that discrimination is against men, is not an original thesis). Furthermore, Policy says an obvious conclusion is not SYNTH (to which I would argue, stating a law, and then sourcing research that demonstrates that law is not being followed for a specific gender, fit under an obvious conclusion. An example of what is not SYNTH describes a source providing the size of the sun, a source providing the size of the moon, and then a conclusion that the sun is bigger than the moon (despite the fact nether source references the other celestial body). I would argue that the example provided for NOT SYNTH is very much the same as the situation described here).

I still have concerns about my arguments being referred to as "finding loopholes" and being told this talk page is not for such discussions when the original editor specifically asked for reasons why these paragraphs should NOT be considered SYNTH, which is precisely what I did?--Kratch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) EDIT cleaned up wording slightly--Kratch (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's not an original thesis, then you can surely find another reliable source that makes the argument that the evidence presented in this set of studies shows that men's rights are being violated. Claiming that such a conclusion is so obvious as to be completely apparent to anyone reading both sources is a really confusing argument to make when you have multiple people disagreeing with you that the conclusion is obvious. To claim that the suggestion is so obvious as to be unpublishable makes no sense at all. I'm not sure you read the burden point that you tried to link, but here's a quote from it: "The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable." I've done this already in this section, and will do it again: the sources that have been used support the idea that a sentencing disparity exists, they don't say what the cause is, and they don't claim that it's a men's rights issue. The section improperly synthesizes them, to assert that a sentencing disparity exists (which is in the sources,) is unjustifiable on the basis of the other facts of the case (which is suggested as one of several possibilities by a source) and that that unjustifiable disparity infringes on the rights of men (which is not in any of the sources.) You've been unable to show that reading is unreasonable.

I am removing this section, because I believe it is clearly synthesis, most other editors on this page who have made relevant arguments (slp, hipocrite, mathsci) have agreed that this is synthesis, and many other editors have expressed concerns on this page about the general excess of synthesis currently in the article. If you genuinely believe I am wrong, you should feel free to go ask for a second opinion at a relevant noticeboard. (And please note that generally the burden of proving content belongs in an article belongs to those trying to put the content there, so please don't restore the section without, say, having gotten consensus at WP:NOR/N that it is appropriate. (Consensus here that the argument is not synthetic would also work to restore it of course, but in all seriousness I don't think you can do that, so if you really do believe this isn't OR you would be better off asking at NORN.)) Kevin (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, the examples you gave are in fact irrelevant, and here is why. All your examples are either demonstrably false, a subjective matter of opinion (Bush's intelligence), or lack evidence to prove them true (conspiracies). Therefore, whether they are "obvious issues" is irrelevant - they must be excluded from Misplaced Pages for one of those three (very significant) reasons.

Sentencing disparities, on the other hand, are none of those three. They are demonstrably true and not a matter of opinion. The right to equal treatment under the law is likewise demonstrably true and not a matter of opinion (that is, the existence of such right as written under US law is not a question of opinion). That is why your explanation fails.

Now, up until this writing I believed that a strict adherence to Misplaced Pages policy dictated that sentencing disparity be excluded. However, after reading Kratch's elaboration and citation of further rules, I see that in fact, the rules clearly allow the section to remain. The analogy of the sun and the moon seem to be analogous to sentencing disparities and equal treatment under the law.

"Source 1 says the Sun is this big. Source 2 says the moon is this big. Therefore the Sun is bigger." = OK under the rules.

"Source 1 says we have the right to equal sentencing. Source 2 says men are given harsher sentences. Therefore men's rights are being violated." = OK under the rules. Celdaz (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's best to stick with the policy pages than delving around on essay pages. The latter are the opinions of one or more editors, and don't have consensus of the community, unlike the policy pages. The actual OR policy says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." If neither of source 1(A) nor source 2(B) state "Therefore men's rights are being violated" the article cannot say it or imply it. Your sun and moon analogy is of a different form; I am sure a logician can explain clearly and concisely why, but even from lay point of view they are not equivalent. It is to do with "bigness" being the predicate position in both propositions and forming the conclusion too. --Slp1 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither source A nor B specifically say "men's rights are being violated", correct. But source A says that "everyone (by definition including men) has the right to equal sentencing" and source B says "we have proved that men don't receive equal sentencing." The rules of logic clearly indicate that the conclusion "men's rights are therefore being violated" is just as inevitable and reasonable as "the sun is bigger". I really do not see see how this arguing about technicalities and removing valid information helps make a better article - Kevin's explanation about "obvious issues" above was a failure as I explained previously. Celdaz (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you would have WP make an exception to our policies for this edit and this page, and we simply can't do it. If you'd like to change the policy, then the place is the talkpage of the WP:OR page, not here. It's a question of what WP's role and purpose is, and it simply isn't the place to make new arguments and draw new conclusions. If nobody but men's rights activists have noted this as a violation of "men's rights" then WP won't be the first place to do so. --Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CALC for why we can say "2 (the volume of the moon) is less than 3 (the volume of the sun)," but not "It is only fair for men to have the right to an abortion." Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

All kinds of conspiracy theorists believe that what they believe in is so well supported by the available evidence as to be obvious. For instance, these guys believe that legal action taken against them is invalid because it's taken against JOHN Q SMITH (who they believe is a fictitious entity) and not John Q Smith. To be clear, I don't think MRA's are conspiracy theorists, but I do believe that the argument "But it's so obvious when you look at these sources that it should be included in Misplaced Pages without a reliable source having stated it" is not an argument that we can ever accept for claims of this nature partly because it's so hard to define a line. The tax conspiracy guys believe that the straight facts prove their point 100% obviously beyond any reasonable doubt, and I suspect that you'd look at their claims and think they are crazy. Requiring reliable sources for all arguments stops us from having to draw a line.

Anyway, there's another significant problem: including a section that has not being discussed in reliable sources also isn't something that we do. Even if this whole section wasn't unacceptable synthesis (and it is), Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Also please note, I editconflicted with everyone who has replied recently, so this whole reply was written before the new replies. Kevin (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

religion section

I removed the entire section on religion for the following reasons:

• it was confused: it did not distinguish between positive rights (the right to do something, like have multiple wives) and negative rights (the right to be free of something, such as being circumcised). This is a problem that pervades the rest of the article as well, incidentally.
• Religious mandates in advanced societies are almost never challenged on the grounds that they violate secular male rights. The only time I can think of this happening is in the case of Mormon polygamy, and that was resolved mostly because the Mormons themselves gave it up as a matter of mainstream doctrine. Generally speaking, religions are free to impose anything they like on their own congregations as a matter of principle; where secular rights intercede, it is usually only to guarantee that people can leave the faith if they so choose.

Comments welcome, as always. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I removed the circumcision section for the same reason. even setting aside the problematically weasel-worded "It is considered by advocacy groups to be a euphemism for male genital mutilation", there is nothing about male rights in the entire section, except for the apparent conviction that this ought to be an issue for male rights. on-point sourcing of some sort is needed. --Ludwigs2 17:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Prison rape & Cancer sections

I have removed this, because apart from the main claims being utterly unsourced, it is completely irrelevant to this article. It is clearly ridiculous to have a section pointing out that men are more likely to be raped in prison, without equating this with the likelihood of either gender being raped in general. I have added a caveat to the Cancer section, although I'm unconvinced that this needs to be here either. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

health issues

what should we do with the healthcare and paternity leave sections? While I can't disagree with the discrepancy (I haven't checked the sourcing, but I do believe this should easy to source), it's a myopic perspective on the topic. For instance, a balanced perspective would recognize that less money may be spent on male cancers than female, but far more attention is spent on male reproductive health than on female reproductive health.

I'll add that no real effort has been made to tie these sections to the topic via sourcing, but (unlike much of the rest of the article) there's at lest the glimmer of a possibility here. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone can find a source that makes it a rights issue - it may turn out to be so in the UK, which has a notorious postcode lottery for certain types of expensive healthcare, which may mean that men cannot access medical treatments. There's no need to mention women, if men in Richmond, North Yorks can't get the sort of treatment for their bits that men in Richmond, Virginia can, then that's a men's issue alright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if it is discussed in a source that frames it as an issue of men's rights.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Raab (MP) fought for paternity leave (until recently, men got 2 weeks paternity, unpaid, nothing more) in the UK under a banner of equality/equal rights. I will attempt to produce an acceptable source soon (I don't have a lot of time during the week, so likely on the weekend). Don't know of any acceptable sources that outs healthcare as a "rights" issue for men yet, unless menshealthnetwork.org or a proposal to the white house for a counsel for boys to men that makes mention counts (if the council proposal does count, it might actually be a very helpful source all around)?--Kratch (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"far more attention is spent on male reproductive health than on female reproductive health" - would you care to expand on what you mean by this, perhaps by way of examples? Zzz90210 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, federally subsidized patients generally have far easier access to male impotence drugs than to things like contraception and abortion, and there's always some effort in Congress to limit women's care further. As a rule in the US, pregnancy related issues (be it prevention, prenatal care or likewise) are lowest on the totem pole and first on the chopping block, while issues related to male sexuality are usually matters of significant investment and deep concern. Good enough, or do we need to get into apparent entitlement of basketball stars and French dignitaries to sexually assault hotel maids? --Ludwigs2 05:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

How many of the sources that we have on the page right now can be considered reliable and are actually about the topic of men's rights, in specific? I've gone through a few and found that they are either primary sources that don't phrase the subject in the context of men's rights or they are men's rights activist sources. The reason I ask, is that if the sources are of sufficiently low quality, it might be better to just wipe the entire article, stub it and start from the beginning rather than remove sections one by one, as this might just leave the article in a completely nonsensical format. Thoughts? Nformation 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Very very few of them are, and even fewer are ones that I would consider adequate to establish the claims that they make. I do think that consensus will be achieved to move the article to an MRA related title, so I think that we should be approaching content creation as if that will occur. I just updated the history section a bit - there are some sources available for it, and actually a huge number available for the history of the movement in India. Outside of the history section, I would support wiping most stuff and starting to write an appropriate article from the ground up on men right's activism, since support for a move is very strong. (We will also need to examine how much of an article about MRA's can be appropriate spent discussing the specific claims that they make.) Kevin (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, since a lot of us are new here and you seem to be well beneath the mire, would you be willing to compile a list of sources that you deem appropriate and post them here so that we can all go through them and get an understanding of where this article is going? Nformation 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at compiling a more detailed list later, though I don't have time right now. I think that, in general:

• MRA sources are acceptable as primary sources for uncontentious details about MRA groups/history. MRA sources should be limited to groups or people whose notability and relevance has been established by secondary sources - so, something from the national coalition for men is OK, something from a random MRA blog isn't. (There also have to be secondary reliable sources that would support us talking about this stuff in the first place.)
  • MRA sources that happen to meet our normal WP:RS standards are of course acceptable as sources in the same way that normal RS'es are. This includes stuff like the Hoffman books. However, unless it's a statement of uncontentious fact, stuff taken from these sources needs to be explicitly framed as taken from them, and not presented in an editorial voice. (We can say in a relevant place "Christina Hoff Sommers believes that feminism is harming children" but we cannot use Sommers to say "Feminism is harming children.")
• News stories about MRA's are acceptable as sources of information about MRA groups/history/claims, and that kind of stuff. For a new article about MRA's, news articles used should either be explicitly be talking about MRA's or should be talking about people or groups who self-identify as MRA's.
• Although it's okay to talk about MRA claims, they shouldn't dominate the article. We should probably base the amount we talk about them on whatever is standard protocol for articles on advocacy groups - I haven't looked enough to be sure what it is. At a bare minimum, we should only talk about MRA claims that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The primary gist of the article shouldn't be "these are claims that MRA groups make" but rather "This is what MRA is, this is some of what they believe, this is their history, this is their reception"
  • Discussions of MRA claims need to neutrally represent what is relayed in reliable sources. The article has had a lot of problems with attempting to present MRA claims as fact.
• Academic sources that are specifically about MRA's are awesome. It's been argued that we can't use academic sources because they are biased against MRA's, but this doesn't connect well with sourcing policies, since we're supposed to represent viewpoints that have been published in high quality secondary sources and not try to create novel ones. There are a decent number of academic papers about this sort of thing that will come up on jstor searches.
• We should only cite stuff like academic research in to domestic violence rates if it has been brought up in relation specifically to MRA stuff. This article has at various points had massive problems with editors trying to use the results of research studies to support points. Unless the same studies have been brought up in RS'es, this is original research. It's beyond our scope as Misplaced Pages editors to try to sort through the literature and find studies that we think prove or disprove MRA points.

All of this is premised on developing an article on MRA's, and not men's rights itself. I think those bullets would be a good way forward towards developing an encyclopedic article about MRA's that plays nice with our policies and is balanced and neutral. (They're also not meant as an inclusive list of everything we need to do, and since I wrote this in a hurry it's perfectly possible some of them are silly or wrong.) Kevin (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article structure is fine. The contents listing provides a good list of Mens Rights issues that enjoy mainstream recognition and coverage, and that a reasonable person would expect to find covered in an article titled "mens rights". The actual contents obviously needs improvement and better sourcing...but I would oppose reducing the article to a stub as the structure is very valid IMO. Zzz90210 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New editors may be expected

The Redditors in Men's rights have noted the unprotection of this page. If we have new editors, please remember to start with a welcome message, and don't bite the newcomers. Thanks all for helping keep this page civil, and my job easier. KillerChihuahua 19:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we perhaps make a custom welcome message for this topic with an outline of the relevant policy or would that be an AGF violation? Also, evidently we're all feminists. Nformation 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use standard templates; if the first edits are contrary to policy we have welcome templates to cover that. Look on WP:WT under Specialized messages if you don't feel that {{subst:welcome}} will cover it. I don't see that anything other than {{subst:Welcomelaws}}, {{subst:welcomenpov}} or {{subst:Welcomeunsourced}} will be needed. KillerChihuahua 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am a new editor here. I just voted in the move thingy and it was very exciting. How many votes do we need to win? Do the women have to get permission before they can vote? This biting stuff. Kinda seems canibalistic, reminds me of vampirism. Gross. Anyway, could someone please tell me how do i get one of those neat "welcome" templates? – Lionel 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights are distinctly different than Men's grievences

Many sections of this article are not about "Men's rights," but rather are about "things where women are advantaged over men." For example: Military Conscription, Refugees, Paternity leave, Social security and retirement, Cancer, Sentencing disparities, Rape laws, most of Reproductive rights, Male parental rights, Political representation, and Domestic Violence do not generally refer to Mens rights, but rather "things mens rights advocates would like changed." This is not acceptable for an article on mens rights. Unless a unique and specific justification for each and every line that is something like "Women get this extra right, men don't" is created, I intend to remove them all tomorrow. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true that an advantage is not the same thing as a right, much like the fact that less white Americans are incarcerated compared to black Americans is an advantage but not an issue about rights (in itself). However, you're quite wrong in your position. You state that conscription is not a men's rights issue. This is ridiculous.

We can all agree that personal liberty is a right. In many countries, men are denied that right to personal liberty because they are forced into the army regardless of their wishes. For you to stand there and say "Men are disadvantaged over women in that regard, but I cannot see how it is an issue of men's rights" is unbelievable. Celdaz (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think that 'in country X, men are denied the right to refuse military service' would be sourceable and a clear area where men in country X are denied a right that men in other countries have (no need to involve women at this point). Many countries with conscription or national service have options for men who do not wish to serve in the military - that should be sourceable too.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Celdaz. The thing is that here on WP our personal opinions about what are men's rights and what aren't are really irrelevant. What we need is sources, good secondary sources. That's what Hipocrite is asking for, quite rightly. Luckily, this section from a scholarly book mentions that conscription and some of the other topics above are viewed by MRAs as evidence of the cost of masculinity. I personally haven't been able to find reliable sources showing that these are considered by anybody other than MRAs to be a "right". Perhaps you will have better luck, and I will keep looking as I have time. But that's what this article requires: reliable sources that directly connect these topics to men's rights, rather than simply as talking points of MRAs. --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Slp1, I don't understand what you are saying. Hipocrite has made the assertion that conscription, among other things, is "unrelated to men's rights and instead men's grievances." and therefore the subject does not belong in this article.

I have disputed that assertion by pointing out the fact that personal liberty is a universal right and logically, conscription violates that right, therefore it should be discussed here.

You are now telling me that "well, what we need is reliable sources." Reliable sources for what exactly? That men are conscripted? Easy enough. That personal liberty is a right? Again, easy enough, the United Nations has a bunch of documents about human rights. What are you saying, exactly? Celdaz (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No you need a source that says that conscription is a violation of human rights, and in order to include it here you need to say that it is a violation of Men's rights specifically. Documents about human rights ar enot documents about Men's rights.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of conscription is one of sexual discrimination applicable to men, not one of forced labour (although that could be considered an issue in a different context). Zzz90210 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration but our personal logic doesn't come into how we edit here. That's because it opens the door for person 1 to say "It's a right" and person 2 to say "It isn't a right" and we have no idea who is right (haha). What gets included needs to verifiable, and not original research. Finding sources for men being conscripted would be fine for the conscription article, but if you want to say that conscription is a men's rights issue and should be included here, then you need to find a reliable source making that statement. Directly. Your idea of finding one source for men being conscripted and another one for personal liberty being a right would be the epitome of synthesis, which is not allowed. And though the article is rife with original research and synthesis currently, we don't want to add more! If you haven't read them already, I'd advice checking the links I've given, as they set out WP's policies in all its ghastly detail. I know it isn't a problem finding sources to say that MRAs complain about conscription as being discriminatory, but it doesn't appear that others agree that this is a rights issue, and in fact the gendered draft was upheld by the Supreme Court in the US, I believe. But like I said, I may not have looked in the right place yet. I hope this explanation helps.

One final thing to add. Usually when writing an article it is best to find the best possible sources about a topic and then write the article depending on what is found. It can be a dangerous POV practice to start looking for sources to "prove" points. I just say this as a caution, because I've been suggesting you look for sources when really in my heart of hearts, I don't think it is the best way to proceed. I think there are quite a lot of advantages with Hipocrite removing the sections: then we can start afresh using the best sources as our starting point. --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Celdaz, I am sure there is a source from the Vietnam era that links conscription/the draft as a rights violation. Others, if such a source was produced, would this be sufficient to have the subject included?--Kratch (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hipcrite, the right to equal treatment, or equality among persons, is at the foundation of most or all modern rights movements, be it black rights in the US, women's rights around the world, or treatment of minorities in various cultures. In other words, issues where men are subject to unequal treatment with respect to women (including in most of your examples) can therefore easily be identified as Mens Rights issues. If you genuinely want to help improve this article (and through doing so Misplaced Pages), your efforts might be better spent in helping source content rather than taking a chainsaw to everything you disagree with. Zzz90210 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask you all to keep a clear and focused eye on the word 'rights', which is an incredibly slippery word. For instance, I have heard the arguments that conscription is a violation of men's right's, that military service for gays is a violation of the rights of male soldiers who voluntarily enlist, that military service for women is a violation of the rights of male soldiers, and that the failure of the military to place women in combat roles is a violation of women's rights. it's largely balderdash. in a free society the notion of 'rights' implies that each person has the same rights regardless of personal characteristics like gender, and so the encroachment of one group on the sinecures of another group is not a violation of the second group's rights (even though it is often interpreted that way). Military service is often considered a privilege: it confers status, respect, and benefits that do not accrue to the rest of the population, and is often a matter of great personal pride. treating it as though it were a universal anathema is unrealistic and over-simplified. --Ludwigs2 04:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand your comment. The word 'sinecures' has no meaning to me so I cant really respond to that sentence, you may want to try and explain your point in a simpler and clearer manner. I agree that purported rights that have little or no mainstream recognition should probably not be included (I have never heard mainstream views that the existence of woman soldiers are a violation of Mens Rights). Misplaced Pages is not a place for expressing personal opinions, so whether you or I actually believe that a given Mens Rights issue is genuine/legitimate or not is really quite irrelevant - what is relevant is whether or not the issue has mainstream recognition as a Mens Rights issue, if it can be sourced, and if a reasonable person would expect a articled titled "Mens Rights" to cover it. This talk page exists to discuss the article, not debate the subject matter - so I am not going to argue with you about whether military service is a "privilege" or a "universal anathema" - however if you are aware of any mainstream sources documenting that debate it would be a good source for the article. Zzz90210 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Zzz: you can't really talk about 'rights' at all unless you understand the need to distinguish rights from other concepts (like sinecures, entitlements, privileges…). quick rundown of terminology:

• Right: an assumedly invariant capacity shared (in liberal societies) by all citizens or all humans, granted and protected by the state, though often attributed to a higher moral code. Rights can (ostensibly) never be taken away, though all but the most liberal nations play fast and loose with that point. This breaks down into two loose categories:
  • positive rights - the ability to do something: e.g. the right to pursue happiness or bear arms
  • negative rights - the ability to be free of something something: e.g. the right to life or liberty
• Privilege: something that looks much like a right, but is granted to specific groups or people for specific reasons. Driving a car on public highways in the US is considered a privilege: one must be licensed to do it and the license can be taken away. Privileges can be positive or negative (see Jim Crow laws for examples).
• Entitlement: A benefit given to a group as a matter of expectation. When these are mandated by the government (e.g. social security) they are called entitlements; when they are a matter of cultural practice there is more varied terminology (including 'sinecure'). the glass ceiling is an example of a sinecure: women have trouble reaching the highest echelons in government and the business world because those positions are traditionally reserved for men.

When you take something like military service, you have a complex mix of these issues to deal with. for the short list:

• life (a positive right which compulsory service threatens)
• the ability to pursue a chosen career in the military (a traditional a sinecure for men which has been reinterpreted as a positive right for everyone)
• military benefits (college funding, veterans assistance, etc. which are privileges granted to soldiers for service, and viewed as unjust when service is a sinecure for men)
• avoidance of unpleasant issues in close quarters (a negative right which has historically been used to bar gays, women, and minorities from military service. this has largely dissipated due to changing social norms, but it has not disappeared as a factor).

I understand that there's an urge (particularly in the US) to view rights in 'I-me-mine' terms, but historically and theoretically the concept of rights is designed to be social: asserting a right for yourself automatically implies asserting and respecting that right for everyone, because doing otherwise is actually asserting a privilege or entitlement. Much of the material on this article has nothing to do with rights per se, but discusses sinecures, entitlements and privileges that men have had historically which are now being threatened. Unsophisticated authors will refer to these as rights (because it's such a nice oomphy word), but we have to be careful to draw these distinctions out. --Ludwigs2 13:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource: Michael Flood

I understand this man Michael Flood has written several academic, peer reviewed papers about the men's right's movement which may provide source material for constructing the Men's Rights entry. For what it's worth. 58.170.59.250 (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean these?

123.211.181.170 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The is a link to Flood's Men's Biblipgraphy which might be useful for sources. Carptrash (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Kevin (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Role the dice and take your chances citing Flood. This is not meant as a threat, but as an observation that MRA's deplore Flood, and will attack this page, again requiring sanctions, if they believe that this page was gutted, and supplemented with Flood, who is considered by MRA's to be anti-male. You've been designated for termination (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it but not using good sources out of fear of public backlash goes against what wikipedia stands for --Guerillero | My Talk 15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Guer. And, luckily, now that community sanctions have been put in place, it will be very easy to get rid of anyone who comes here to 'attack this page.' Kevin (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with myself. Citing Flood, in my humble opinion will violate WP:DE and WP:RS. That being said, do what you wanna do. I'm just letting you know, that the perception of the people I hang out with online will be that you emasculated this page, then filled with feminist propoganda. I'm not saying I object. I'm just pointing out the obvious. You've been designated for termination (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit: How are you going to "very eas...get rid of anyone who comes here to 'attack this page,'" with proxy servers and a group made up of some of the most dedicated people and vicious people out there, including people who will find and stalk you? Just seems like a colossal disruptive editing situation. In my humble opinion, I foresee that this page is going to have to be locked. You've been designated for termination (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referencing here, Magdelyn, but this is the talk page on the article Men's rights. All posts should be about improving the article. The above post violates WP:TPG and is a definite personal attack - I just can't figure out who you're insulting. Moderate your approach, and comment on content, not the contributors or any hypothetical group of "dedicated people and vicious people out there" - this is unproductive and against policy. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 21:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You may view it as an attack. But, in fact, it isn't. I'm not insulting anyone, and that's why you can't figure it out. What I meant is exactly what I said. It seems bizaar that you'd consider my observations questionable, given the recent history of this page, and my having cited twice WP:DE My comments are not more unproductive as certainly Kevin's. Therefore, I will request that you recind your accusation. Thank you in advance. You've been designated for termination (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are in error. This article is under probation; you will cease such hostile posts or you will be sanctioned, I assure you. Your choice. KillerChihuahua 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are they in fact good sources for men's rights issues if the articles in question are in fact highly critical of men and men's rights? I could find peer-reviewed academic articles from anti-transgender feminists - would that be appropriate source material on the article about trans rights? Celdaz (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We represent all major points of view that have been talked about in reliable sources. We give each point of view roughly proportional coverage to that which they have received in reliable sources. We do not avoid sources simply because they like or dislike the subject. Kevin (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

domestic violence

As it stands right now, this section is really awful. It says, as uncaveated fact, "In many jurisdictions, domestic violence is seen as men assaulting women and female violence is systematically minimized and denied." It does have sources, and there really are reputable sources that do claim this, but it's not at all an uncontroversial claim - although there are definitely reliable sources that support what is current said in the section, there's also very strong support in reliable sources for the exact opposite. The section currently makes no effort what so ever to accurately represent the state of the literature - it consists of cherrypicked sources used to advance a point of view. I don't have time to rewrite the section right now, but I am commenting it out until someone does.

Domestic_violence#Gender_aspects_of_abuse although not perfect is a hell of a lot better, and will give you some idea of how weird this section as it currently stands is. That page may also be a good place to start getting ideas about how to rewrite this section in an acceptable manner (although with a page move likely happening, it may not be a good idea to do a full rewrite before we figure out the scope of the new page...) Kevin (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that it is missing the other side of the issue, but don't have time to add to it yourself, you could NPOV tag it, but removing it when you admit that it has reputable sources is a bit much. I'll be doing the R in BRD shortly. Arkon (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As it stood, it was a grotesque misrepresentation of the literature. For now, I have simply swapped the content that was in the section with the first paragraph of Domestic_violence#Gender_aspects_of_abuse. Please feel free to do a further import of content from that page if you think it's warranted, or to revert me if you think that the initial content was more balanced than the new stuff is. I'm not intending to edit war about it, it's just did a colossally poor job at representing the main POV's present in reliable sources as it was. (I would've actually done this the first time if it had occurred to me, instead of just blanking it.) Kevin (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't be reverting that section again. But you probably shouldn't have either. Arkon (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think the prior version of it was better, please revert to it - or just let me know and I will selfrevert. I usually would not repeat an edit similar to one that had been rv'ed so soon, but it hadnt occurred to me to import content previously, and it seemed vastly preferable to either other option. If you disagree that its a better option, let me know. Kevin (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The version before was perfectly accurate. Did you read my citations, they were impeccable. The Florida Law Review, Psychological Bulliten, Routledge. Your version uses domestic violence advocates to give an out of context assertions that all claims of equal rates are only because of women's self defense, but that is true at all. As per the extensive discussion about this before "Dobash is not a reliable source. He merely dismisses data that he doesn't like. He presents no evidence. He is notable enough that his criticisms should be mentioned, but certainly not notable enough to simply dismiss the great bulk of the research on this question." How about what a non activist source says? Well, Archer (2000) which has been cited over 1000 times (Google), or more than 680 (per WebOfScience) says

It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating an attack (Bland & Om, 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird, 1989, cited in Straus, 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men reported using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988b). This evidence does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women's self-defense.

Sources that reliable sources say have a history of misrepresenting issues are not reliable sources for refuting the idea that misrepresentation has gone on. Lifetime domestic violence advocates and feminists are hardly reliable sources because of an obvious COI. Family researchers like Archer or Frieze (who does call her self a feminist) and criminal psychologists like Motz are. I am reinstating my version. extransit (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm bringing the sources here for reference

"The denial or trivialization of violence by women against men and the knowledge that women can also be violent imply that what is happening to the male victims of violence needs to be examined."

• Frieze, Irene (2000). "Violence in close relationships—development of a research area: Comment on Archer (2000)". Psychological Bulletin 126 (5): 681-684.

"Despite the wealth and diversity of the sociological research and the consistency of the findings, female violence is not recognized within the extensive legal literature on domestic violence. Instead, the literature consistently suggests that only men commit domestic violence. Either explicitly, or more often implicitly, through the failure to address the subject in any objective manner, female violence is denied, defended and minimized."

• Kelly, Linda (2003). "Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state". Florida State University Law Review 30: 792-793.

"Why does society deny the fact of female violence? This book explores the nature and causes of female violence from the perspectives of psychodynamic theory and forensic psychology."

• Motz, Anna (2008). The psychology of female violence: Crimes against the body. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-93091-6.

"selective inattention by both media and reaserachers victimization more visible."

• Straus, M. A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor.

extransit (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Dobash is not a reliable source. He merely dismisses data... This is what a Misplaced Pages editor wrote about a study. Surely you do not believe that this is good enough to dismiss criticisms of the Conflict Tactics Scale? Getting cited is not such a great thing when many of the authors who cite your research do so to criticize your survey tool.

As you very well know, Russel P. Dobash is by far not the only researcher who has criticized the CTS. Even the National Institute of Justice has explained that the CTS "may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence." The CTS does not measure the motivation for violence (a person who acts in self-defense scores one point on the scale just as the person who initiates violence); the CTS does not measure sexual violence (if you push your partner after she/he raped you then you get a point but not your partner); the CTS does not measure control, violence among ex-partners etc.

The issue is more complicated than you present it. Straus (the person who invented the CTS) cites studies that say that more women than men report initiating an attack. Other studies found that women are more willing to report their use of violence because "women tend to recognize such behavior as a violation of their socially prescribed gender role and readily confess to their transgression of the norm for their behavior; men, on the other hand, tend to minimize their violence against female partners" and that women tend to underestimate victimization while men tend to overestimate theirs (see Frude, N. (1994). "Marital violence: An interactional perspective. In Male violence (ed by Archer). Routledge Press. London, England; Rouse, L., Breen, R. and Howell, M. (1988). "Abuse in intimate relationships: A comparison of married and dating college students. Journal of interpersonal violence. 3 414-419; Schwartz, M. (1987). "Gender and injury in spousal assault." Sociological forum. 20. 61-75; Ferrante, A. et al (1996). Measuring the extent of domestic violence. Crime Research Center, University of Western Australia. Hawkins Press. Perth, Australia etc.)? Just because Archer defends his research and his methodology does not mean that criticisms of the CTS are "debunked" or something.

A domestic violence section that is exclusively based on CTS studies (without even mentioning their limitations) does not accurately represent the current state of literature. To be more precise, CTS studies do not examine domestic violence. They examine domestic violence minus sexual violence minus self-defense minus violence by ex-partners etc. It's a completely different definition of "domestic violence". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you arguments are somewhat irrelevant as the section does not make an argument for gender symmetry (yet). It just says that women's violence against men is minimized. As for your assertions about the CTS, approximately one hundred studies that have not used the CTS have found the same thing (see Fieberts bibliography). extransit (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree that this section is deeply problematic. I have several concerns about WP:Verifiability, and would like more information. This section appears sourced but when I look at the sources I can't find the information. Page numbers and links would help.....

• can you please give a page number in the Motz book to support "In many jurisdictions, domestic violence is seen as men assaulting women and female violence is systematically minimized and denied"? I looked fairly closely and don't see anything.
• Same thing for "This means that support networks for victims of domestic violence are often only available to women and that in mutually abusive situations only the man may face legal consequences" What is the page number of Cook's Abused Men where this appears? I've also looked for Rosenthal (2006) also cited there. I can't find the source, and so perhaps you could find a better link or reference. The portion of the text cited there "Even when couples violence is mutual or minor, domestic violence programs typically discourage partner reconciliation" bears little or no relationship to the content it is supposed to source.
• What is the page number of from the Nathanson and Young book for "It has also been alleged that dishonest information and tactics by activists contibutes to an unjustifiably negative image of men and misandry". I can't find this information as related to domestic violence in particular in the book at present

There is also the problem of cherrypicking of information, apparently to push a POV.

• For example, why is "Men aged 20 to 24 were just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women" noted from this source but not "overall women are more likely to be abused in general and to be the victims of stronger physical violence. Across all age ranges, one in four women have been abused compared with one in six men" which comes just after?

Finally, there is the major problem of original research, which has been pointed out repeatedly on this page as a criticism of much of the content of this page. Virtually none of these sources make the connection with men's rights. Various bits and bobs seem to have been put together to advocate for a position. Can you point out where these links to men's rights are made in the various sources please?

I'm going to wait a while to get the page numbers and clarifications so that I can check some of the sources before removing all or part of this section. Thanks for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment