Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Long block quote in Divorce section

There's a long block quote in the divorce section:

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."[75]

To my eyes, this just seems like a rant that should be briefly summarized rather than included in its entirety. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've gone and shortened it substantially. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The summary didn't reflect the entirety of the quote so I've reverted. I'm not convinced the sentiments expressed can be effectively summarized but I'll see what I come up with and post it here for review. Thanks. D.Creish (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is also a case of something being given undue attention in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the summary need to "reflect the entirety of the quote"? I don't think it's the mission of wikipedia to include everything anyone has ever said. I think the summary by PeterTheFourth adequately reflected the tone and substance of the quote and would support that edit. Of course, this sidesteps the overall point of it being given undue attention. Can somebody explain why a redlinked author deserves this much attention? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the cited source, the quote is on page 45 of Messner's "Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements" (https://books.google.com/books?id=EfyxAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22rich+doyle%22+men%27s+rights&source=bl&ots=peOQOAg_AN&sig=D5z87_BjLyvTIyCADgjJHE3XKOI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8k-XTyZXKAhXIDiwKHShkCvsQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=%22rich%20doyle%22%20men%27s%20rights&f=false

and is ascribed to "Rich Doyle", not Richard Doyle. I can find little else about Rich Doyle via a google search, and the top hit is Messner's book. Seems to me we have a fairily clear case of undue emphasis. I'm going to re-implement PeterTheFourth's edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Opt-out of Fatherhood

There should be a section for forced fatherhood. Men should be able to opt out of fatherhood.--78.165.64.137 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery of the Morning Jog

The Mysteries of Laura recently did this ep which focused on the men's rights org "Men's Renaissance Association", worth a mention? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

jan 21, 2016, Violation Of Men's Rights In Wikipedia Pages

jan 21, 2016, In the Men's Rights page we see that after complaints created by the men's activists as stated by the page there is another sentence that often states that the men's rights activists claims are wrong, but there is no such opposing claims after the feminist claim in the page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism , where we can see feminists claims about women's rights being violated but without any opposing views, this is sheer discrimination against men in Wikipedia, on top of that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism states in the Talk section that there may be punishment who would change the contents as more punishable than the Men's Rights page implying that the contents in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism page remain uncontested whereas Men's rights page may be changed including with feminist perceptive, We need to create a Sexism Against Men Wikipedia page, Thank you, Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article#How_to_create_a_page Mracidglee (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are imagining that men's rights and feminism are equivalent. They are not. We don't treat them the same way. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, kind of. We treat them the same, but the notable topics among each are different, this leads to differences between this article and the one on Feminism.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents or however the saying goes, I have to agree that this thing of mentioning criticism to the movement so early on seems unusual, even if one does not compare this to the feminism article. The MRM and the KKK are both loose activist groups. And yet, even the KKK have lesser criticism before the contents table than the MRM page. In the KKK article, it basically says at the end "The KKK think they are true Christians, other Christians disagree". In other words, the KKK are given the privilege of speaking in their defence for that part. In this article, it says "People think this movement is misogynistic" without providing any evidence that people in the movement are of contrary opinion: In fact, what follows is a history about an older, more misogynistic form of the movement, irrelevant to the modern day movement. Clearly, even if it isn't intentional (although it probably is), this article is saying "The men's rights movement is misogynistic", and I would like it if this was corrected to be more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.233.154 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary Aggressor and Mandatory Arrest laws

Not sure whether this should be a separate section, or a subsection of domestic violence section, but one important issue is discrimination written into the laws of several US states (e.g. Alaska, Colorado, Iowa,...) , which require the arrest of the man (in a mixed-sex dispute) in a domestic violence call, regardless of whether he is the victim. Men calling for help go to jail. 24.57.206.239 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Any sources for this that someone can find?  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Some stuff here: http://www.stopvaw.org/determining_the_predominant_aggressor

and here: http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/victimdefendant/victimdefendant.html

and here: http://www.nij.gov/publications/dv-dual-arrest-222679/exhibits/Pages/table1.aspx

and then of course there's wikipedia:

Many U.S. police departments responded to the study, adopting a mandatory arrest policy for spousal violence cases with probable cause.[102] By 2005, 23 states and the District of Columbia had enacted mandatory arrest for domestic assault, without warrant, given that the officer has probable cause and regardless of whether or not the officer witnessed the crime.[103] The Minneapolis study also influenced policy in other countries, including New Zealand, which adopted a pro-arrest policy for domestic violence cases.[104]

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Law_enforcement )

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

None of these sources mention the MRM. Domestic violence in the United States is probably the appropriate place for this stuff to go. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Contraception

I see there's a section called "reproductive rights" which is currently about "opt-out of fatherhood" (or what is commonly called "financial abortion"). Maybe that should be a subsection, because there is a second issue which is related, which could be put under a parallel subsection called "equal contraceptive access". In the US, under the ACA, all FDA-approved male contraceptive methods (i.e. male condoms and male surgery) are explicitly excluded from the coverage requirements, whereas something in the range of 18 methods of contraception are required to be covered for women. 24.57.206.239 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this raised by the MRM? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

sentence in lede leading to multiple edits and reversions (purprtedly?)

In recent months/weeks the sentence below has been the subject of multiple edits and reversions. Especially the use of the word 'purportedly', which has been repeatedly removed and replaced with other words such as "systematically", "allegedly" etc.

The movement focuses on issues in numerous areas of society (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies) which purportedly discriminate against men.

Purportedly does not seem to be a particularly good descriptor as it's definition is: (appear to be or do something, especially falsely) which is not exactly what we are going for. Personally I think that this is best replaced with 'may' as the meaning here is supposed to be something along the lines of "which in some cases does and in other cases can be agrued to discriminate against men" (based on the content of the article). This change was reverted to 'allegedly' by Mr swordfish however. I pointed out that allegedly is inappropriate due to its definition: (used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof) as there is definitely plenty of proof of discrimination in my cases.

While I think 'may' is the best choice I have seen so far, I am open to other suggestions. or arguments against it. an alternate choice would be to replace "purportedly" with "can be argued to".  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what that part is even needed as we cannot (and sources do not) say that they discriminate against men. Just that MRMs think they do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The part about discrimination is entirely necessary, as that is the whole focus of the article is it not? How about "which can be argued to discriminate against men"? to alleviate any confusion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  22:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Purportedly" is too loaded, and "can be argued to" is too weasely. If MRAs have said these things, then we should just attribute the statement to them, optionally with rebuttal for balance. Also, since this statement is in the lead, this should be hashed out in the body of the article, and summarized for the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

this is a good argument. I'm fine with your change.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this wording is exactly what the article needed. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way here is the relevant guideline: WP:WORDS. It even uses the word "purported" as an example of what not to say. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion that those things actually do discriminate against men can't be reliably sourced (or at least can't be presented as fact, since vast numbers of RS suggest otherwise). It should read "which men's rights activists argue discriminate against men" or something to that effect. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which it does now, right? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Allan Johnson

What's going on with this sentence fragment? "Some if not many men's rights issues stem from double standards, gender roles, and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson," (sentence ends here) Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The full quote that is cited is

"such problems are prominent in many men's lives, but this is no organized male response to the patriarchal system whose dynamics produce much of men's loss, suffering, and grief. Contrary to Bly's claim, it is not a parallel to the women's movement that is merely on a "different timetable." It may be a response to genuine emotional and spiritual needs that are met by bringing men together to drum, chant, and share stories and feelings from their lives. It may help to heal some of the damage patriarchy does to men's lives. But it is not a movement aimed at the system and the gender dynamics that actually cause that damage."

Which doesn't seem to be what the sentence is about... i suggest deleting the sentence.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence makes no sense because User:FPP removed the word „patriarchy“. --SonicY (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Everything after the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Domestic violence" section seems superfluous to me. We've said what the MRM says, and given the other side. After that we start quoting statistics as if we're trying to prove that one side or the other is correct. Unless any of the sources used after this point actually mentions the MRM, I think this should all just be cut. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removing statistics. I think the "gender symmetry" stuff belongs though as it's a key component of the issue being debated. It can be pared down though and if there's an article about the gender symmetry argument to point to, that would be helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe import to the Domestic violence article? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is already in Domestic violence against men, which we link to. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I fourth removing the block of statistics from sources that don't reference the MRM, which, as Kendall-K1 said, is essentially everything after the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. IMHO that still leaves the section with an appropriate amount of information and a clear explanation as to the MRM's position on DV and "gender symmetry," as well as the opposing viewpoints. There's already a link to the article on Domestic violence against men at the topic of the section (though I'm noticing now that it could use a little work in the lede, maybe further on too, but I didn't read the rest of the article just now). Permstrump (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Mann's statements

I changed a sentence in the Reactions/criticism section from "Ruth.M.Man of University of Windsor have also criticized the men's rights group for..." to say, "Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor found that men's rights groups..." Kendall-K1 then changed the word "found" to "said." Kendall-K1, the source for that statement is a research paper by Mann on the topic. This really was one of the findings of her research, not just a statement she made one time. Before reverting it back again, I wanted to post an explanation here and give you a chance to respond. PermStrump(talk) 02:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Found" is way too strong for this. Her "research" is that only in name. Arkon (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Found" is a loaded term, and "said" is considered more neutral. See WP:SAY. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On a related subject, do you know what's up with the parenthetical things like "(AuCoin, 2005; Ogrodnik, 2006)"? I see you removed at least one, should the rest go? Are they intended to be sources for the short phrases in quotes? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The main reason I started rewording that section was because a lot of it was basically copy & pasted straight from the Mann source, including Mann's parenthetical citations. A few descriptive words were deleted here and there, I guess in order to make it "different" from the source. The snippets didn't make a whole lot of sense without more context from the surrounding sentences anyway. PermStrump(talk) 04:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Roosh

I removed the part about Roosh's web site being dedicated to MRM. There is a discussion about this at Talk:Roosh V. Essentially there are a lot people calling him a MRA but he doesn't consider himself one. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably should treat it similar to how Christina Hoff Sommers is called "anti-femininist". Just attribute the statements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought about that. At Roosh V we have: "While Roosh has been called a "men's rights activist" by The Daily Beast,[20] Daily Mail,[21] Salon,[22] S. E. Smith,[23] and others, he does not consider himself one, and has called such activists "sexual losers".[24]" While I'm not absolutely opposed to saying that here, it seems out of place in an article that's about Men's Rights Movement and not about Roosh. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably out of place. Any specific section on Roosh would be undue given the rejection of the label unless we have a ton of outside sources talking about MRM with respect to Roosh and it somehow adds to our understanding of MRM specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Contest"

Recent edit warring occurred because an editor didn't know that "contest claims" meant "argue against claims." He seemed to have thought that "contest claims that" meant "makes claims that."

I'm not suggesting that we need to change it. I'm just giving my reasons for reverting and for justifying WP:INVOLVED. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I see they actually did mean "contest"... hm. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. He was not changing the meaning at all. Just the phrasing, because he thought that there was some contest that we hadn't told him about. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting one. I taught English in another country for two years so I can at least relate to where you're coming from. But never ran across this "to contest" vs. "a contest" confusion. Interesting one though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men's rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Miller/miller1.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't read German

but I can't find anything about the photograph used in the article labeled, "Single father with his two daughters" to suggest that this is actually what is portrayed in the picture, especially since the caption is being changed. Since this picture is likely one of three living people I advice that caution be employed and that the picture be removed. But not until you get a chance to comment. Carptrash (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The original German caption reads "Vater mit seinen beiden Töchtern"; it does not mention divorce, the subject of the section it was added too. It does not even say the father is single. Even if it did, it would not be a terribly useful illustration of the subject. I'm all in favor of adding more photos to this article, which is fairly drab visually, but I'm inclined to remove this one. I'll go ahead and do that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Gender paradox of suicide

@Ionize Me: has asked for source verification for "derive from greater tendency for females to use less lethal methods and greater male access" sourced to a paywalled Elsevier journal, and has been reverted with the comment "paywall sources are legitimate and don't need to be 'verified'". I think the request is reasonable. We are not doubting that this is a reliable source, we are questioning whether it actually supports the material. Given the poor grammar I think it's possible the source has not been accurately reflected in the material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked up the paper, this seems to be the relevant passage:

Males tend to use methods for suicide attempts that are more immediately lethal than those chosen by females, since men use more violent methods or quicker acting agents; whereas men often die by suicide due to hanging, carbon monoxide poisoning and fire-arms, females often try to poison themselves which is a method that might have a high toxicity but is associated with a low lethality and a slow rate of action (Bjerkeset et al., 2008; Canetto and Sakinofsky, 1998; Beautrais, 2002 and Henderson et al., 2005). Several reports also have demonstrated that, while females attempt suicide more often than males, as suicide attempts become medically more serious, then the percentage of males involved in such attempts increases, and the gender differences diminish (Beautrais, 2002). This also implicates that the total duration of the suicidal process is often shorter in males than in females because only few suicide attempts already can result in a fatal suicide in males. It should also be noted that the applied methods of committing suicide not only depend on availability and accessibility of the method, but also on the cultural, religious and social values in the concerned regions (Kanchan and Menezes, 2008a and Kanchan and Menezes, 2008b; Kanchan et al., 2009).

In general the paper seems to confirm the content that was challenged - is there a specific concern about what it does or doesn't support? There are other passages of it that may be relevant but I'd need to know what exactly is being challenged. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the Kanchan and Menzes papers cited as sources here suggest that the difference in fatal vs. non-fatal methods most often comes down to availability and cultural factors, and not the effectiveness (ie, lethality) of the method. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that this is not one of the main findings of the paper, [[1]] check out here where they review the paper and make no mention of this finding when discussing it. And really i would argue that this material above does NOT support the statement in the article, which is about men having greater access to firearms (which is not explicitly stated in the source) and also implies that it is easier for men to get a firearm, rather than simply that more men already own firearms (which is probably true but is again not in the source above).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's the major finding or not - the paper states it as fact and cites a number of other studies which also support that fact. It appears to be an uncontroversual assertion among experts in the field. Agree about firearms though, the emphasis should be on the fact that availability of different means is a factor rather than on firearms specifically. That's more consistent with the source. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The tag was inserted just after "greater male access" but the poor grammar makes it hard to know what this is saying. The passage you quoted says "applied methods of committing suicide ... depend on availability and accessibility of the method" but doesn't say anything about "greater male access", and I'm not sure what that phrase is talking about. I guess it means men have better access to the more lethal methods? The passage you quote says men use lethal methods more often, but I don't think it says that's because they have better access to those methods. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I too looked it up then ate dinner, took out trash, fed cats and come back here to find Fyddlestix beat me to it and can confirm the text quoted above. It's in section 3.5 on page 22. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also add the following quote from the citation:

As already mentioned, the difference in availability of the suicide method but also in cultural and social values towards the applied method could also influence in part the reported different male/female suicide ratios in several Asian countries (Kanchan and Menezes, 2008a,b; Kanchan et al., 2009).

The author seems most interested in cultural differences, but these two quotes support the "availability" portion of our article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for y'all's help. Should've checked here before I made my last (now-reverted) revert-through-edit (and got a warning). :-D Ionize Me (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't all of the suicide stats be more appropriate for the Gender differences in suicide article? I don't see anything in any of these tying them to men's rights. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a men's rights issue. That's why it is in this article. Ionize Me (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We need some RS that describe it as such then, Pearl is right, the sources currently cited for this section don't frame it as a MR issue at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, providing source(s) to back up that it is indeed a men's rights issue would be helpful. Ionize Me (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond being "helpful", but rather would be an essential component for inclusion in this article. If we don't have any sources directly tying this to the men's rights movement, then it is WP:SYNTH claiming that it is related, even if true. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. In the meantime, do you think the suicide section should remain or be deleted? Ionize Me (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think at the bare minimum to keep the section, we'd need an RS stating that concerns with gender disparity in suicide is an issue of concern for the MRM. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "men's rights" and "men's rights movement" in history

This link, while not an original source itself, provides links to other sources which, if followed to their end, lead to original sources for each item. Be prepared to click through and past a several non-original blog pages to get to the originals. But they are there.

There are ample original newspaper sources from the 1800s, and I notice they are not mentioned in the main WP entry. FWIW 106.69.68.161 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

'Reaction' section dominated by one person's reaction

It doesn't seem right to me that Prof. Ruth Mann's remarks should be so prominent in the reactions' section. After all, this is not an article about Mann, or her views on and examination of the subject (even if published). The article on Feminism lists contemporary critics along with proper citations, which seems quite sensible, although incomprehensive there.

I suggest listing a few critics of the MRM and put her paper in the list of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:A83F:F36C:5CC3:DDEB:1EC6:8201 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Perceived, and they believe

Taking this to talk before I revert this, to the longstanding version. Adding the word "Perceived" is WP: SCAREQUOTES and is not supported by the sources. And "they believe" is not in the linked source quote, so is a misrepresentation of the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From my personal POV, these are indeed perceived and not fully manifest in reality. But I acknowledge that is my POV. We discuss other topics like white privilege without using these caveats. I'm afraid that use here would be akin to and set Providence for use on other articles like feminism. We'd need to show that most RS consider these to be just perceptions and not supported like with other FRINGE ideas. But until then, I think we should just present it as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What the sources says, the part I could find, is, "All these cases of discrimination make up the men's rights view that... " To me "view that" is pretty much the same as "perceived." Carptrash (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm... that is a good point. Do we have other sources to back this up in any way? Also pinging JzG. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, perceived is not scare quotes. The objective evidence is that the perceived oppression is simply loss of privilege. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We've got two sources to that statement, The first one is as Carptrash placed it. However the second one does not frame them as mere perceptions but as aspects of reality. Edit: Actually re-reading the lede, I'm wondering if the second and third sentences could be combined, they are largely saying the same thing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are tons of sources available for this sort of thing, with all types of wording used. Perhaps someone should start a RFC. Arkon (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding "perceived" does not mean it ain't so, leaving it out suggests that these are facts, which is seriously questioned.Carptrash (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which facts are questioned? Arkon (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't explicitly mean it isn't so, I do believe that it implies that it isn't so. Hence my reference to WP: SCAREQUOTES. However this might be a moot point. Would there be any opposition to me combining the second and third sentences to say "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on numerous social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies), which men's rights advocates say discriminate against men" ? The two sentences say largely the same thing, and moots the point of perception and frames it in what they say. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Combining them seems fine to me. Though I see no reason to tack on the "which men's rights advocates say discriminate men". The current edit, however, lacks consensus. Arkon (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eventually we need to agree on something, so I'll go along with that. Carptrash (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a form of WP:ATT. It's pretty clear that the only people who think there is discrimination against men are MRAs, and pretty much every informed source disagrees profoundly, so we just need to make it clear that this is their belief and not objective reality. I am happy with any wording that avoids ambiguity. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly what it appears to me, but what are you going to do with these . . . .guys? This is, I believe, the only article I have ever been blocked at, so I am reluctant to call these spades . . . . . ....... a spade. Carptrash (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll are cute. Arkon (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My name is Guy Chapman. Three syllables, all meaning man. And my middle name is André, from the greek ανδρος, meaning man. If men are being oppressed then I am getting it fourfold. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And if they are not getting oppressed? Carptrash (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah jeez, this again? Now I remember why I unwatchlisted this talk page. I remember saying three or four years ago that, if an article reports someone "perceiving" things in a certain way, that does not imply anything about whether the perception is accurate. And it's not even as though the two are necessarily contradictory. It's definitely possible for someone to lead a coddled and privileged life on account of his gender until, as a separated father in a family law courtroom, he gets mercilessly kicked in the teeth. Anyways, I would have thought "MRAs say" and "MRAs perceive" are neutral enough that it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is taking a stance on the accuracy of those perceptions, but apparently some feel otherwise. Hope you've got your thesauruses handy. Reyk _YO! 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Carptrash (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Kyohyi got a good edit in earlier, and we seem to all (at least the stuff up above hasn't addressed it), be ok with it. But yeah, these articles are garbage. Arkon (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision

I restored the circumcision section of this article and was reverted because the user felt that I needed "reliable, independent, (and) non-polemical sources". First of all, the sources do appear to meet WP:RS in my opinion. Furthermore, one could argue that the men's rights movement is full of polemical viewpoints (I'm not arguing that for the record) but it's still worth giving due weight to the view on circumcision within the men's rights movement. After all, this article is about men's rights activists' viewpoints. I'm not quite understanding what is wrong with the sources that were provided so if anyone would like to chime in on whether or not they're applicable to the men's rights movement- please do. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The following text is being reinserted. i think it is problematic on a number of levels.

Circumcision

Some men's rights activists see circumcision, especially routine neonatal circumcision, as a violation of men's genital integrity. They criticize that female genital mutilation has received more attention than male circumcision.

References

This is a very low impact factor journal in the "emerging field of men and masculinities studies". In other words, this is not an established field of scholarship and the journal has a strong ideological bias.

The controversy around non-consensual circumcision of children for non-therapeutic reasons is not exclusive to the men's rights movement

Correct, and sources that are to do with circumcision rather than explicitly relating it to MRM, constitute a novel synthesis. Additionally there are problems with the sources, such as:

• Not specific to MRM but written by a member of the National Coalition for Men, not a neutral observer: J. Steven Svoboda, Robert S. Van Howe, James C. Dwyer, Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum. 17 J Contemp Health Law & Policy 61 (2000).
• Polemical on activist website: Povenmire, R. (1998–1999). "Do Parents Have the Legal Authority to Consent to the Surgical Amputation of Normal, Healthy Tissue From Their Infant Children?: The Practice of Circumcision in the United States". Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law. 7 (1): 87–123. PMID 16526136. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
• Not specific to MRM but written by a member of the National Coalition for Men, not a neutral observer: Peter W. Adler. Is Circumcision Legal? 16(3) Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. 439 (2013).

And so on. I'm sympathetic tot he idea that infant circumcision is unethical but in context this text is a non-sequitur and covered with much greater nuance at the linked article (which includes, for example, the dissenting opinions, which clearly prevail as the practice is still legal).

The evidence that this is an MRM issue is thin and the on-topic part of the removed text is exactly one short sentence sourced to a fringe journal, followed by a one-sided presentation of a complex issue drawn from cherry-picked sources. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clearly pertinent to the MRM and many of them reference men's rights. The National Coalition for Men is arguably part of the MRM. This article isn't about the prevailing opinion, it's about the viewpoints of the men's rights movement Prcc27🎃 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the argument does not need to be entirely two sided (aside from briefly mentioning that there are dissenting views, as was done in the text that is being disputed), this article is on the views of the MRM, and circumcision is a huge part of that, to argue otherwise is to be either ignorant of the MRM, or downright disingenuous.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't reasonably expect to remove all sources from activists do you? Honestly, the article is on the views of those activists. Should we also remove all of the sources to activists on the feminism article? In any case you say "Polemical on activist website" to a source that was published in the "Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law" which unless I'm much mistaken, isn't an activist site (and actually is largely associated with feminism). The National Coalition for Men is definitely part of the MRM, and their views are not required to be 'neutral' to be represented here. There are dozens more sources out there to use, simply do a quick google search, but these sources are fine anyway. Restore the section.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments against low impact factors I've heard before, and you use this argument all the time to throw out sources you don't like. The fact is, the use of Impact factor to judge the quality of a work is disputed anyway, and the impact factor of the journal in question is 0.865, and at 68 out of 138, it is pretty middle-of-the-road and seems totally fine. It might be different if it was 5th out of 138. Certainly there is no justification to throw out the source, and I'm getting a little sick of hearing you argue against middle ground journals in this way.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The error is as follows: "Some MRMs say circumcision is a men's rights issue (source) some MRAs writing in the International Journal of Pretending Men's Rights Studies Are A Thing. LOOK! LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE OF HOW HORRIBLE IT IS! LOOK! There, we told you it's a MR issue.

This article is quite shitty enough without going off down endless rabbit holes like this. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We can give due weight to MRAs that view circumcision as a men's issue and due weight to those that don't (although I'm not sure if there are any reliable sources on MRAs that argue circumcision isn't a men's rights issue). We have reliable sources that prove that some MRAs view it as a men's issue and therefore it should be included. You seem to not won't it included simply because you don't like it. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can give due weight to it when we have reliable independent sources showing what that weight it. Right now we have one marginally reliable source that is not independent. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

nice work trying to maintain a neutral point of view (sarcasm)... Jesus, try to keep your bias under control. Sources are as unbiased as they are going to be, and if I don't hear some kind of reasonable argument as to why this material is innapropriate, I am going to restore the section later this evening. As it is all we have here is one rather pedantic editor with a clear POV to push.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is a pretty clear cut inclusion IMO. Arkon (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think the statement is particularly controversial even if sourcing is a bit weak. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But it is controversial, precisely because the sourcing is weak. Bring stornger sourcing and the problem goes away. Unless, of course, you don't have stronger sourcing in which case exclusion is 100% right. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad you restored it. Question: In other articles there is a separate criticism section, why is there not one here? Why is each statement and position followed immediately by criticism? Since every criticism I've read is sourced to a feminist author, would it not make more sense to have a single feminist objections section or a feminist criticism section? Sirtheoir (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)sirtheoir

See WP:Criticism for guidelines on "criticism" sections. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I’ll look at it, thanks but skimming through the article on Feminism what I see are discussions about various feminist’s point of view; the one exception is two sentences at the end of the Science section. The non-feminist POV objections are in a separate section where Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Lisa Lucile Owens[231] and Daphne Patai are listed, followed by a brief three sentence description of their POVs. Certainly, if the POV on the Feminism article was handled the same way as the Men’s Rights Movement article page, the POVs these authors, various male authors (Warren Ferrall, Paul Nathanson come to mind), and men’s rights commentators would be throughout the Feminism page? Or the Men’s Rights Movement article should have a partial list of feminist authors followed by a brief description of their POV at the end of the article? At first blush it appears that, at least, the Wikipedia editors’ lack a rigorous knowledge of these authors, and therefore may have shallow understanding of their ideas which appear to be part of the basis or at least supporting arguments to the Men’s Right Movement? Not that I’m much better, I’ll have to read these authors and the Wikipedia rules. Sirtheoir (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC) sirtheoir

I'm removing the section again as I have checked the references and very few of them (only 1, as far as I can tell) even mention's the men's rights movement. That makes the entire section a clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH. If you want a section on circumcision, find some (reliable) refs that actually frame the issue as a "men's rights" issue. Because the refs cited here don't. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Read this. The National Coalition for Men are clearly a men's rights organisation, and that places them as part of the mens rights movement. To be clear, many groups that are part of the mens rights movement tend to avoid the moniker directly, as there is a social stigma against it. With these sources being clearly demonstrated as sources from mens right's advocates, I don't see how this section violates WP:SYNTH. In any case, if you want some sources that say that circumcision is a MR issue, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And if you want sources from MR activists about the subject, see [7], [8], [9], and also from the National Coalition for Men [10]*****. Arguing that this isn't a MRM issue is laughable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I wholehearted agree with UTC's statement about the National Coalition for Men, his desire to include circumcision as a MR issue, and his links. I must say I'm impressed with the speed and completeness of his response!Sirtheoir (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not buying the WP:SYNTH argument because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia articles are less about the name of the article itself and more about a topic or concept. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Me either, this seems like a pedantic excuse to remove the section. I'm not going to argue that the section is written as well as it can be, or that the sources shouldn't be shuffled around a bit. Mainly the fact that the NCfM sources are used in the sentence where it says that that it "is not exclusive to the MRM". As Guy has pointed out, they are written by members of the NCfM, and can therefore be construed as being part of the MRM (opposite to what is written in that sentence). However, to argue that the whole thing is synth is and should be bathwatered is idiotic to the extreme.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Note that i have restored the section, but moved a couple of the references and added a couple of others to help resolve this issue. This certainly isn't a situation to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it is clear that this is a MRM issue. Rather, the section needs to be improved and expanded.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't fix the problem. There are no good sources tying this to MRM, and to use the balance of the sources amounts to WP:SYN. How about bringing new, high quality, reliable independent sources showing this to be a MRM issue? Guy (Help!) 01:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are not going to be happy until I hand you an article published in Nature with the title "circumcision is a men's rights issue". I've clearly demonstrated that circumcision is a men's rights issue above, (and I have just added a ton of sources directly tying the MRM to circumcision). But you would rather just be pedantic an WP:BATHWATER the whole section? This isn't SYNTH, not even close. You are not going to call any sources that mention the men's rights movement 'good sources' because of the nature of the men's rights movement, high profile sources tend to avoid hot button issues like this. Specifically, anti circumcision activists tend to avoid the term 'men's rights', even if those same activists are otherwise involved in mens right's organisations.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• until someone brings good sources this cannot come in. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted another attempt to add this - Insertcleverphrase, if you're going to keep trying to add this please remove sources that don't mention and have nothing to do with the MRM from your proposed edit. They don't support the content you're trying to add, and it would be misleading to include them. And please avoid blogs, breitbart, etc - that kind of stuff would get shot down at RSN before you could count to ten. A more helpful approach would be to make a list of what you think are the best sources that you can find on circumcision and the MRM here, and we'll see what kind of treatment they might warrant in the article. You're not going to be able to edit-war the section in as written, we're much better off starting fresh. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already references to Breitbart in the article, so yeah you can see how I'd be confused. As for the other sources, perhaps you should remove the ones you object to, rather than reverting the entire change? Specifically, which of the following references do you disagree with, and for what reason?

I can't really establish which references you disagree with unless you tell me, as I am not a mindreader, and you removed all of the references at once instead of simply removing the individual references you feel are inappropriate. I'm trying to resolve this issue, and am the only one actively trying to find sources here. I could use some cooperation rather than simply automatic smash down of the undo button.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that a Men's rights organisation's website is definitely a reliable source for "Some men's rights activists see circumcision..." Same for men's right's organisation blogs, etc. See WP:BIASED.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the sources: Angelucci is primary, unreliable and not independent; Good Men Project is primary, unreliable and not independent; Valeii is primary, unreliable and really not independent either; Deacon is unreliable because Breitbart; Meyers looks on the face of it to be OK (marginal on reliability but whatevs) but more in a second; Heist is primary, unreliable and not independent; Allen is addressed above and seems to be the WP:COATRACKon which you're trying to hang the entire thing; Svoboda is also discussed above, a known activist and does not establish the link between circumcision and MRA; Adler ditto.

The one marginally reliable source is the GQ article. This actually says "The aura of victimhood adopted by MRAs extends to criticising the extent of coverage of female genital mutilation at the expense of discussing male circumcision" - this is absolutely not a substantiation of circumcision as an MRA issue, instead it's pointing out the dramatically inappropriate false equivalency of comparing circumcision with FGM. If we wanted to include a sentence saying that MRAs build a false sense of victimhood by drawing false paralleles between circumcision and FGM then this would be an acceptable source, but we'd need another to establish significance. As a source for the text you're trying to add? Not even close.

So, were you, at some point, intending to bring new, high quality sources that give some evidence that this is a significant MRA issue, or are you simply going to keep trying to crowbar the same crappy paper with an ever larger snowstorm of the same old irrelevant or unreliable links? There is discussion of the MRM in high profile sources, yet all you can offer for this is dross. I question by now whether it is ever going to be possible to come up with a source that is actually compelling. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Question, doesn't WP:BIASED allow us to use sources such as Angelucci, and Good Men Project specifically for the assertion that "Some men's rights activists have views X..."? In this particular case these sources would not be required to have independence or be secondary. Sourcing always depends on the context, and the context of this statement makes a case for pretty lenient sourcing. Please correct me if wrong. You accuse me of coat racking but Allen is perfectly clear as being an appropriate link here "Likewise, another faction of the men's rights movement might include intactivists, which is broadly considered to be an anticirumcision movement that began in the early 1980s". In any case, finding the sources is the issue here, surely you agree that the sources above, and in my earlier comment clearly show that circumcision IS a mens rights issue and we should be working together to make a decent section for it in the article, one way or another? My goal isn't to 'crowbar' anything, I think it is rather clear that circumcision is a men's rights issue (as pretty much every men's rights organisation says so) and therefore should be represented as such in the article, the only issue right now is finding sources that will satisfy you. This is made difficult by the fact that when advocating for anti-circumcision, men's rights activists tend to avoid the term 'men's rights' due to it's inflammatory connotations, and sources that link the two are generally not published in high quality sources in an attempt to avoid bad publicity.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED would allow us to use some of these sources in describing a person's views n an article about that person, but it does work here because the question is significance and synthesis. There are no independent sources clarifying the significance of this view, and the one source we have that links the issues, does so in a way that makes it plain the actual content is a POV spin on the issue. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED is more permissive than that, it isn't just used for articles about the source's subject. Dispite plenty of clear evidence that circumcision is a genuine men's rights issue, you'd rather be pedantic and remove the whole section because we can't find a perfect source and can only find sources that are 'OK'. I guess I understand why some people get annoyed with deletionists now. I'm out mate, I know some other articles where I can spend my time more constructively.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

JzG After scouring the internet for sources, I managed to find at least two more high quality ones, one from Paper (magazine) [11], and another from the International Business Times [12]. I also rewrote the upper section to help address any issues by clearly following the language of the sources. Hopefully this can resolve the issue without having to argue over WP:BIASED or the other sources. Combined with GQ and other sources, the sourcing here now seems more than robust enough to establish that circumcision is a men's rights issue.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point about the source pointing out the false equivalence. I suggest that if our MRM article ever contains a section about circumcIsion, that our text should tell the reader how little regard is given the issue by most observers. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone would like to do a bunch of reading: this is probably a really good place to start. Arkon (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The first result is a letter to the editor, neither of the next two even mentions men's rights. I think this is the search you want - note that it only returns 5 results. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So very helpful and not snarky at all! P.S. Did you read any of them? Arkon (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I came off as snarky - yes I did read them:

• This does not appear to be a RS.
• This seems like a passing mention of the MRM, there's not much there to hang a discussion of the issue in this article on.
• The Kennedy source does not discuss men's rights at all (the words only appear in the subtitle of one of the works cited - otherwise there's no mention of the MRM in her article).
• I read the Svodoba source carefully - he does discuss the MRM, but seemingly only to suggest that intactivists and men's rights activists face a similar kind of resistance (ie, "striving to affirm the need for equal treatment of a sex that is seen as historically dominant and currently privileged in many or most aspects of human life" makes a lot of people uncomfortable).
• The Allan source seems uncertain about the relationship between intactivists and the MRM: he states that "another faction of the men’s rights movement might include 'intactivists'" and suggests that "a great deal of work needs to be done in untangling the complexity of circumcision, particularly in light of men’s rights activism." He also suggests that there's seems to be a latent anti-semitism in the places where the MRM and intactivist movement do intersect - are you sure you want that in this article?

All in all I'm not seeing anything that's detailed, in-depth and weight-y enough to justify (and support) a whole section of this article on circumcision. I'm looking to see what else is out there, will let you know if anything particularly useful turns up. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

" are you sure you want that in this article? " Sure, if that's what has been written, why not? Carptrash (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if there's only enough reliable sources for use to write one sentence on circumcision we should include it in the article (probably the health section). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I want to see evidence that this is considered significant by independent commentators. The only independent commentator cited to date does not actually support even the one sentence that was not blatant WP:SYN, rather, it says that MRAs push false equivalence between circumcision and FGM. That is a very different sentence to the one I think you want to include. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is POV "non-consensual circumcision". The parents give consent just like they give consent for appendectomies and other procedures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is about the POV of the MRM. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Rape as male perpetrator only

In the issues section, it lists rape, but suggests that the men's rights issues with rape are false accusations (which is true), marital rape being illegal (of which I have seen no evidence, and all links seem to come from feminist sources, but I digress). There is, however, no mention of the main men's rights issue related to rape, namely that in most countries, rape is defined as a crime only a man can commit, only a woman can be a victim of, or both.

I suggest adding a subsection about lack of legal recognition of male victims and female perpetrators. --Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have heard this argument before, so it might be something that needs to be incorporated. I know that until recently the FBI had a similar definition to that above and that's why statistics did not list male victims as 'rape victims'. As for state law and other countries, I have no idea. As with anything though, we must reflect the sources. The first thing I can suggest is to find some high quality sources that support the inclusion of a section like this, post them here and we can get cracking. If we can't find anything solid enough then it won't fly.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have some sources, both for this being an issue MRAs care about, and that many countries don't have gender equal rape laws.

(MRAs care)

https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/petition-amend-exclusionary-rape-law-that-excludes-woman-from-committing-rape/

https://legalfighter.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/mens-rights-groups-view-on-newly-proposed-rape-law-importance-of-gender-neutrality/

(Laws not gender equal)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2250448 (India)

https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/idn/indonesian_penal_code_html/I.1_Criminal_Code.pdf (indonesia)

http://www.dawn.com/news/1167324 (Pakistan)

http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-PartV.htm (Nigeria)

http://blogs.dw.com/womentalkonline/2013/12/04/the-legal-framework-of-bangladeshs-rape-law/ (Bangladesh)

http://www.impowr.org/content/current-legal-framework-rape-and-sexual-assault-japan (Japan)
u

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1 (UK)

Any feedback on these sources would be helpful.

--Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

None of these appears to pass our test for reliability. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that may be an issue for the ones in the MRAs care section, I'm not sure how to show that without linking to websites showing MRAs talking about it. I also have a voice for men links but they would need to be whitelisted. As for the laws themselves, three are links to the legislation itself(indonesia, nigeria and uk), and one contains a link to the legislation (pakistan). You can't get more reliable than the word of the law. Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant. If the issue is showing that these MRAs care about rape definitions, therefor the MRM in general does, how are you meant to show that the MRM cares about it other than by examples?. If the issue is with the law section, how is linking to laws, when talking about laws, original research? Would I need to find a comparative law study showing how male rape is treated legally in different countries, or am I missing something? Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what Guy wants is an independent source like 'the guardian' or the 'new your times' or a scholarly journal that has commented on this issue, I hope that clarifies things. Refs to laws specifically won't apply unless we have a source that talks about these kinds of laws in regards to how the MRM views them, as otherwise they are WP:SYNTHESIS.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the article on Rape_of_males#International_law. However, there would have to be some source(s) that link these sorts of laws with the Men's right's movement.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also suggest checking out some of these books.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Why would self-sourced statements about what MRAs think are mens' issues not pass the test for RS? The Wiki guideline for Verifiability explicitly states that "Self-published /.../ sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ...". So there's no need for having any second or third party litterature connecting an issue with the MRM as long as there is an MRM site declaring that they consider issue X to be a MRM issue; the unequivocal "Verifiability" policy is all the backing required. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the statements are properly attributed WP:BIASED does seem pretty explicit in allowing this type of sourcing. However, the source still generally needs to be notable and verifiable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's all about WP:UNDUE. We can use a biased source for a description of something that is clearly and unambiguously part of a factually-challenged activist group, but in order to bring something into that ambit we need independent sources ot substantiate its presence as a major part of that movement. If virtually every article mentions it, then there is no problem. If the only articles that mention it are the biased ones, then we can't include it because we have no reality-based sources that position it as part of the movement.

An analogy: autism is a well-established part of the anti-vaccine agenda, but claims that vaccines cause SIDS are way out there and not even mentioned in Vaccine controversies for that reason. There's a mention of shaken baby syndrome; I am far from convinced. That's even more batshit crazy than the SIDS claim. Guy (Help!) 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant by the source of the statement needing to be both notable and verifiable. I should have mentioned WP:UNDUE of course as it would have made my point more clear.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, gosh, that's a bunch of problems ... But I think we can get there. I'll try the elimination method for starters. Just to keep it topic-neutral, I'll use another issue for an example, like intactivism/male genital mutilation, and for an example source, AVfM.

Now, all the quoted policies are aimed at getting and vetting reliable sources S1, S2 ... for claims C1, C2 ... such that these claims conform to the overall policy of verifiability. Now, the one exception to the RS demand of editorial oversight, expertise etc. is that one can use S1 as a source for claims C1 about S1, although one would never dream of using S1 as a source for claims C2, C3 ... about anything else, not even C4(2+2=4). So, as per RS guidelines, we can eliminate the "description of something" argument as long as this something is the source itself.

In the example question about MGM, AVfM claims that they consider it a main issue. And the AVfM guys are MRAs, hence part of the MRM. It follows from this that MGM is a MRH issue, although not the only issue, and not an issue for all of the MRM subgroups. And therefore it should be unproblematic to decide that MGM is a men's rights issue. Once this decision is taken, one doesn't even need to quote AVfM, perhaps not even refer to them, unless one wants to. I see in the policies no requirement for secondary or tertiary sources to confirm self-reports of that kind. Also, there is no requirement that a source itself be notable. If other sources are found, if for some reason sought, though, strictly speaking, superfluous - why, all the better. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments are persuasive, but do leave out at least one important part, WP:WEIGHT. In the case outlined just now, AVfM would at the very least need to be established as being more than a tiny minority part of the MRM to avoid WP:UNDUE. In this particular case AVfM would pass that test IMO, but there is at least some 'notability' or 'prominence' requirement on the part of the source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thx :) We are now delving into second and third tier supporting arguments; that always tends to veer towards petty quibbles and casuistry, for which I apologize in advance. But bear with me - at the moment, I see no alternative to digging into the devilish details.

Fundamentals first: I thought I had read the Verifiability, RS, Undue and now also Weight policy parapraghs and pages thoroughly and attentively, but so far no notability or prominence requirements for sources have caught my eye; of course under the previously mentioned - and rigorously adhered to - restriction that the claims pertain only claims about the source's own activities or opinions and suchlike. If it were a matter of using e.g. AVfM for claims on anything else than AVfM, that would be an entirely different matter. Perhaps it would help if you would be so kind as to present here the actual policy section you have on mind...?

This point is really a quibble ... but is there at all any majority part of the MRM? AFAICS, the MRM sector of the 'manosphere' consists of a wide range of more or less ephemeral media presences, and a handful of slightly more stable organizations. But if I understand the issue correctly, although you restrict the argument to the example case, the argument might apply to the general question, right? From where I type, it certainly looks like it is indeed applicable. Stipulating that this is the case, it certainly lends weight to any prominence requirement, should there be one in the guidelines. However, should there ever be occasion to apply this, it would be very helpful, I think, to find or to establish - whatever the case, to agree upon - some kind of notability or prominence _criterion_, perhaps expressed by some kind of measure. What say you? T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Weight says that:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

but also says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

As this represents a source such as AVfM I would have thought that it would need to be indicated that AVfM is a significantly prevalent part of the MRM, however as sources considered 'reliable' by wikipedia's community don't really report on advocates within the MRM in general, it would be difficult to prove with reliable sources, as the last statement states is necessary.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thx for the work. I think this is the crux of the matter. I read "viewpoint" /on something/ to refer to, say, if prof. Dawkins made a statement about genetics; while reports about self are akin to prof. Dawkins' stating on his webpage (assuming one exists) that he has presented a statement about genetics. The first pertains genetics, and is subject to the Verifiability policy and all that it entails, while the second is a report on self where the report itself is sufficient verification. In the previous example, citing AVfM for info on MGM would violate policy, while citing AVfM on AVfM agitating against MGM similarly is a report on self where the report itself is sufficient verification. I believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of the "self-published sources" section in the relevant policies. Be that as it may, I hope that I have at least identified the core issue, and may the chips fly where they will. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If this really is significant then it would be covered in reliable independent sources, as are most of the uncontended MRM tropes such as custody rights. You [TINY] appear to be looking for excuses to include material based on sources that others have rejected, instead of finding better sources, and I think the reason is that better sources do not exist - so we have no evidence that this is anything other than a fringe-within-a-fringe view, which is why it's a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really get the gist of your post. "If this" what is significant? Who is [TINY]? Why would I be looking for excuses to include material based on sources that others have rejected? What material would that be? And through what filter do I appear to do so, when so far the discussion is centered on clarifying the implications of specific sections of policy text? What is the "this" that you and the others covered under "we" have no evidence for is anything other than a fringe-within-a-fringe view? I welcome your input on the actual issue. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion has reached the "DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS" point. Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good tip. Bye. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well you guys seem very good at assuming the worst of people. Try Hanlon's razor instead, its a lot more fun. '[TINY]' I believe is meant to refer to the IP user above, though I was confused by it as well. However, I would recommend that the IP user above move this discussion over to the reliable sources noticeboard, as that is where this rather arbitrary discussion really belongs (please feel free to ping me if so as I would enjoy being a part of that conversation). If the IP user above has any specific edits to propose to this article then we can consider it here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thx. I am not proposing to use any specific source, so I don't know what moving this discussion over to the reliable sources noticeboard would do; but I'll gratefully accept any helpful advice.

I don't know if it helps, but let me give a little background. My questions arose after reading the discussion further up this talk page about whether or not MGM could be presented as a MRM issue given the status of the sources, specifially the exchanges between User Insertcleverphrasehere and Users Guy and Fyddlestix, around 1. and 2. of November. I'll not quote it, it is all a scroll away up there.

I consulted various policy pages, and in order to check my conclusions I know present them here for scrutiny and criticism, in case I had misread or misunderstood anything. Presenting any specific changes would be contingent on the outcome of the hoped-for discussion, as there seems little point in proposing unhelpful changes that are not in line with policy. I thought of it as part doing my homework, and part preparing the ground for a consensus on the interpretation of policy, in order to facilitate consensus on actual proposals. If this is not the done thing, or too arbitrary, that is to be regretted.

I'd still be interested in other people's take on the status of self-reports within the framework of the Verifiability policy, in between urgent news on razing animals. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps raising the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) instead might be useful for your purposes. People there are of course experts on policy and are best suited to these types of issues.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempts to create section on homelessness

I have tried twice to create a section for MRA claims about male homelessness. The first time it was removed by another editor for being unreliably sourced and badly drafted. The second time, I was unable to make the edit at all because one of my sources was avoiceformen.com, which is on Wikipedia's black list. I would like to ask if the others on this page feel that such a section is worth creating and maintaining, ask if not, then why not? I would also like to ask what sources are acceptable and why avoiceformen.com is blacklisted. Sewblon 20:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

feb 20, 2017, Please ask Wikipedia which feminist web-site is too on their black lists, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique Section Of Men's Rights and Women's Rights

feb 20, 2017, Well I have noticed when men's rights are have the critique section men's rights is considered misogyny where as the critique section of women rights contains people preventing women's rights instead of stating feminism is misandry, this is not a fair assessment, critique of men's rights too is to prevent men's rights and should not accusing men's rights for misogyny, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Red Pill documentary

Just posing a question: a semi-recent documentary, "The Red Pill", came out. Is that possible to use as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.96.49 (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It could maybe used as an op-ed, but I would be very weary of going any further with it than that. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It could be used as a source, but it would be important to use in-text attribution, to make it clear that it is being cited for the film's position or opinion on the topic. It should not be used for citing facts without attribution.

Examples:

"The documentary The Red Pill covers several men's stories of child custody struggles."

or "In the documentary The Red Pill, men's rights activists say that most domestic abuse shelters do not accept men and there is a need for more shelters that support male domestic abuse victims."

NOT "Men are disadvantaged in child custody struggles.(REF to red pill) or "Most domestic abuse shelters do not accept men.(REF to red pill)"

I hope this clarifies things for you.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)